JX 

258 
F? 

385J 


UC - NRLF 


SD    131 


LO 

r- 

oo 


SPEECH 


OF 


MB.  TRUMAN  SMITE  OF  CONN. 


ON  THE 


FRENCH  SPOLIATION  CLAIMS. 


DELIVERED    IN   THE    SENATE  OF  THE    UNITED    STATES,    JANUARY    16  &  17,    1851' 


WASHINGTON  i 

PRINTED     BY     JNO.    T.     TOWERS 

1851. 


SPEECH 

OF 

ME.  SMITH,  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY    16  &   17,   1851. 

The  bill  "to  provide  for  the  ascertainment  and  satisfaction  of  claims  of  American  citizens  for 
Spoliations  committed  by  the  French  prior  to  the  31st  July,  1801,"  being  under  consideration; 
Mr.  SMITH  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows  : 

The  question  comprised  in  this  bill  is,  whether  this  Government  is  not  under  an  equitable 
obligation  to  make  some  indemnity  to  those  of  our  citizens  who  suffered  by  the  spoilation  of  the 
French  anterior  to  the  ratification  of  the  Convention  of  30th  September,  1800.  If  I  were  to 
consult  my  own  feelings,  I  should  be  prepared  to  refer  this  question  to  the  judgment  and  vote  of 
the  Senate,  without  a  single  remark  on  my  part.  The  subject  has  been  so  long  before  Congress, 
has  been  so  often  and  so  thoroughly  examined  in  reports  submitted  from  time  to  time  in  the  Sen- 
ate and  House  of  Representatives,  and  has  also  been  so  frequently  and  so  ably  discussed  on  this 
floor  and  in  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol,  that  it  would  be  presumptuous  for  me  to  expect  that 
T  could  add  much  of  fact  or  argument  to  what  has  already  been  offered  on  the  subject.  But,  as 
there  are  some  honorable  members  of  this  body  who  have  not  hitherto  participated  in  the  delibera- 
tions of  either  branch  of  Congress  on  the  question  before  us,  and  as  the  essential  facts  of  the  case 
may  not  he  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  other  honorable  members,  a  re-presentation  of  the  more 
important  features  of  the  case  may  not  be  without  its  use,  and  will,  perhaps,  be  expected  at  my 
hands. 

The  Senate  can  hardly  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  unexampled  procrastination  which  has  occur- 
red in  making  a  disposition  of  this  subject.  It  was  first  introduced  to  the  notice  and  consideration 
of  Congress,  by  Mr.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  on  the  5th  of  February,  1802,  when  he  presented  a  me- 
morial in  the  House  from  merchants  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  praying  indemnity,  for  the  cause  and 
reason  specified  in  this  bill.  From  that  day  to  this,  they  having  been  appealing  to  the  National 
Legislature  for  redress;  but  they  have  hitherto  appealed  in  vain.  It  has,  therefore,  been  pending 
here  nearly  half  a  century,  and  furnishes  by  far  the  most  striking  illustration  which  has  occurred 
in  the  history  of  the  country,  of  the  truth  of  the  maxim,  that  "  that  delay  is  a  denial  of  justice." 

During  the  first  part  of  this  long  period,  the  subject  seems  not  to  have  been  well  understood  in 
Congress.  Many  of  the  papers  material  to  its  elucidation  remained  in  the  public  archives,  un- 
published and  unknown.  On  the  5th  day  of  March,  1824,  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution  re- 
questing the  President  to  lay  all  these  papers  before  that  body.  On  the  26th  day  of  March,  1826, 
Mr.  Clay,  then  Secretary  of  State,  made  a  report  in  conformity  with  the  resolution,  which  con- 
tained many  papers  that  had  not  before  appeared,  and  which  threw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  sub- 
ject. Mr.  Clay's  report  was  printed,  and  constitutes  Doc.  102,  1st  session  19th  Congress,  being 
an  octavo  volume  of  840  pages. 

This  collection  of  papers  produced  a  decisive  effect  in  favor  of  the  claimants.  Every  commit- 
tee, whether  of  the  Senate  or  House,  who  have  examined  the  subject  since  they  were  published, 
have  came  unhesitatingly  to  the  conclusion  that  the  claims  are  valid,  and  the  obligation  of  the  Gov- 
ernment full  and  complete. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  reports  made  to  the  Senate  since  the  1st  session  of  the  19th  Con- 


1. — 2d  session  19th  Congress,  by  Mr.  Holmes,  Select  Committee. 

2. — 1st  do.  20th  do.  do.  Chambers,         do. 

3. — 2d  do.  20th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

4. — 1st  do.  21st  do.  do.  Livingston,       do. 

5.— 2d  do.  21st  do.  do.  do.  do. 

6.  — 1st  do.  22d  do.  do.  Wilkins,  do. 

7.— 2d  do.  22d  do.  do.  do.  do. 

8.— 2d  do.  23d  do.  do.  Webster,  do. 

9. — 2d  do.  27th  do.  do.  Choate,  Com.  For.  Relations. 

10. — 3d  do.  27th  do.  do.  Archer,  do. 

11. — 1st  do.  28th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

12.— 2d  do.  28th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

13. — 1st  do.  29th  do.  do.  Clayton,  Select  Committee. 

14.— 2d  do.  29th  do.  do.  Morehead,          do. 


Thus  it  appears  that  no  less  than  fourteen  reports,  affirming  the  validity  of  these  claims,  hare 
been  submitted  to  this  body  since  1826,  without  including  the  one  which  I  had  the  honor  to  make 
from  the  Delect  Committee  raised  at  the  last  session,  for  which  I  claim  no  particular  authority 
with  the  Senate. 

In  the  House,  ten  reports  have  been  made  from  the  same  date,  exclusive  of  the  one  of  the  last 
session,  and  all  the  same  way,  as  follows: 

1.  —  1st  session  20th  Congress,  by  Mr.  E.  Everett,  Com.  For.  Affairs. 

2.— 2d  do.  20th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

3. — 2d  do.  23d  do.  do.  do.  do. 

4. — 2d  do.  26th  do.  do  Howard,  do. 

5. — !?*  do.  20th  do.  do.  Cushing,  do. 

6._2d  io.  27th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

7  —3d  do.  27th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

8.  —  Ut  do.  28th  do.  do  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  do. 

9.  —  1st  do.  29th  do.  do.  T.  Smith,  do. 
10.— let  do.  3§th  do.  do.  do.  do. 

If,  to  the  reports  thus  submitted  to  the  Senate  and  House,  we  add  the  reports  made  to  both  at 
the  last  session,  we  have  no  less  than  twenty  six  reports,  (since  the  date  already  mentioned,)  all 
concurring  in  the  same  views  and  arriving  at  the  same  result.  Many  of  these  are  exceedingly  fall 
and  elaborate,  and  some  are  distinguished  by  great  learning  and  ability.  That  of  Edward  Liv- 
ingston, was  presented  to  the  Senate  on  the  22d  February,  1830,  (1st  session  21st  Congress,) 
and  may  be  referred  to  as  conclusive  on  the  question  before  us.  No  man,  either  as  a  statesman, 
publicist,  or  lawyer,  could  be  more  competent  to  form  an  opinion  on  this  interesting  subject,  than 
Mr.  L.;  and  a  perusal  of  his  report  by  honorable  members,  would  render  all  further  argument  su- 
perfluous. This  wonderful  unanimity  of  so  many  committees,  composed  in  several  instances  of 
some  of  the  ablest  men  who  have  ever  occupied  seats  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  should,  it 
i*  believed,  have  great  weight  with  the  Senate. 

The  suggestion  contained  in  the  minority  report  of  the  last  session,  that  the  uniform  concur- 
rence of  committees  for  so  long  a  period,  is  not  entitled  to  much  consideration  on  account  of  the 
parliamentary  rule  of  courtesy,  is  unfounded.  The  honorable  Senator  (Mr.  HUNTEH)  in  that  re- 
port says  "  it  is  a  parliamentary  rule  to  refer  a  subject  to  a  committee  that  is  favorable  to  it,  and 
it  is  too  much  to  ask  that  the  claimants  should  have  not  only  the  benefit  of  this  rule,  but  also  ac- 
quire from  this  very  indulgence,  a  presumption  in  favor  of  their  demands.  If  this  parliamentary 
rule  be  preserved,  and  the  reports  of  committees  so  constituted,  are  to  be  considered  as  presump 
tion  of  title  on  the  part  of  claimants,  they  must  certainly  succeed,  if  they  will  only  persevere  long 
enough.  Under  this  system,  the  older  the  claims,  the  stronger  would  be  the  presumption  in  their 
favor  " 

This  is  certainly  a  compendious  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  authority  of  such  names  as  Livings- 
ton, Holmes,  Chambers,  Wilkins,  Webster,  Choate,  and  Morehead!  No  such  rule  of  courtesy 
is,  or  has  been,  for  a  long  time,  observed  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress.  The  object  of  the 
Senate  in  organizing  its  committees,  whether  standing  or  select,  is  to  insure  a  full,  fair,  and  im- 
partial investigation  of  all  subjects  of  legislation,  and  particularly  of  private  claims.  Who  ever 
before  decried  the  well  considered  opinions  of  committees  of  this  body  on  this  practice  of  courtesy? 
Are  the  opinions  of  such  a  man  as  Edward  Livingston,  to  be  set  aside  on  any  such  grounds? 
Besides,  in  the  House,  the  subject  has,  since  the  first  session  of  the  19th  Congress,  been  uniformly 
referred  to  the  appropriate  Standing  Committee — that  of  Foreign  Affairs.  And  it  is  a  little  too 
much  to  claim  now,  that  this  important  committee  has  been  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  uni- 
formly organized  with  a  view  to  favor  these  claims.  It  is  true,  they  have,  in  the  Senate,  been 
more  generally  referred  to  Select  Committees-,  and  if  the  Senator  will  have  it  that  such  commit- 
tees have  been  predisposed  in  their  favor,  it  has  been  because  the  Senate  itself  has  been  long  con- 
vinced that  they  should  be  allowed  and  paid;  and  in  that  view,  the  appointment  of  every  Select 
Committee  would  involve  the  expression  of  an  opinion  by  this  body  favorable  to  their  validity. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  we  know  that  whenever  the  Houses  have  permitted  themselves  to  acton 
the  subject,  they  have  always  declared  in  favor  of  the  equity  and  justice  of  the  claims.  In  18:55, 
(2d  session,  23d  Congress,)  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  claimants  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of 
twenty  rive  in  the  affirmative  to  twenty  in  the  negative,  and  was  sent  to  the  House,  but  was  not 
taken  up  by  that  body.  In  1844,  (2d  Session,  28th  Congress,)  a  similar  bill  passed  to  a  third 
reading  in  the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  twenty  six  yeas  to  fifteen  nays,  but  was  not  ultimately  acted 
on  or  pissed,  for  want  of  time.  In  1846,  (1st  Session,  29th  Congress,)  a  like  bill  passed  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  yeas  to  twenty-three  nays,  and  being  sent  to  the  House,  passed 
that  body  at  the  same  session,  by  a  vote  of  ninety-four  yeas  to  eighty-seven  nays,  and  was  sent 
to  the  Executive,  by  whom  it  was  vetoed  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  short  time  intervening  between  the  passage  of  the  bill  and  the  adjournment  of  Congress, 
did  not  allow  him  to  give  the  subject  a  sufficient  examination. 


2.  It  was  passed  near  the  close  of  the  session,  when  many  measures  of  importance  claimed  the 
attention  of  Congress,  and  might  not  have  received  that  "full  and  deliberate  consideration  which 
*he  large  sum  it  appropriated,  and  the  then  existing  condition  of  the  treasury  and  the  country  de- 
manded;" ;md  therefore,  he  deemed  it  to  be  his  duty  to  return  it  to  the  Senate,  where  it  originated, 
that  it  might  thereafter  undergo  the  revision  of  Congress. 

'3.  Antiquity  of  the  claims. — All  of  them  had  their  origin  in  events  which  had  occurred  prior 
to  1800,  and  ihey  had  been  since  1802,  from  time  to  time,  before  Congress,  "no  greater  neces- 
sity or  propriety  existed  for  providing  for  these  claims  at  that  time,  than  had  existed  for  near  half 
a  century." 

4.  "  The  treasury  has  often  been  in  a  condition  to  enable  the  Government"  to  satisfy  these 
claims,  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  they  would  have  done  so  had  they  deemed  them  valid. 

5.  "Nothing  was  obtained  for  the  claimants  by   negotiation,"  not  able  to  satisfy  himself  that 
the  Government  had  become  in  any  way  responsible. 

6.  The  period  "peculiarly  unfavorable  for  the  satisfaction  of  claims  of  so  hrge  an  amount."     * 
*      *     "There  is  no  surplus  in  the  treasury.      A  puoiic  ueui  o    ?everal  millions  of  dollars  had 

been  created  within  the  Ins1  v.v  years,  we  were  engaged  in  a  foreign  war,  uncertain  in  it?  dura- 
tion, involving  !m  v /  expenditures,  to  prosecute  which,  Congress  had  at  its  then  session  author- 
ized a  furf  er  ,oan." 

7.  "The  bill  provides  that  they"  (the  claimants,)  "shall  be  paid  in  land  scrip,  whereby  they 
are  made  in  effect  a  mortgage  on  the  public  lands  in  the  New  States,"  which  he  suggested  wouM 
be  contrary  lo  the  interests  of  that  section  and  of  the  whole  country. 

8  "These  claims  are  estimated  to  amount  to  a  much  larger  sum  than  five  millions  of  dollars, 
and  yet  the  claimant  is  required  to  release  to  the  Government  all  other  compensation,  and  accept 
his  share  of  the  fund,  which  is  known  to  be  inadequate." 

If  I  were  to  speak  with  no  more  than  a  proper  freedom  of  the  incongruous  reasons  thus  put  for- 
ward for  vetoing  such  a  bill,  on  the  ground  (as  the  late  President  himself  admitted,)  of  "  inexpe- 
diency alone,"  I  fear  [  might  be  thought  to  be  wanting  in  respect  for  his  memory,  and  there- 
fore, I  shall  content  myself  with  remarking  that  this  paper  must  be  regarded  by  every  candid 
mind,  as  much  less  satisfactory  than  any  other  which  emanated  from  his  pen  while  he  rilled  the 
Presidential  office  In  this  view  the  Senate  must  have  concurred,  for  on  the  return  of  the  bill 
the  vote  on  the  question,  whether  it  should  pass,  notwithstanding  the  veto,  stood  twenty-seven 
in  the  affirmative  to  tiiteen  in  the  negative,  requiring  a  change  of  only  one  vote  to  overrule  the 
objections  of  the  President,  by  the  constitutional  majority  of  two-thirds.  The  majority  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  oiiginally,  was  only  four,  but  on  the  final  vote  it  was  no  less  than  twelve!  And  this 
must  be  regarded  as  alike  a  rebuke  of  Executive  interposition,  to  defeat  a  bill  of  thi?  character, 
and  a  strong  expression  of  the  body  in  favor  of  the  equity  and  justice  of  the  claims  themselves. 
We  have,  then,  the  subject  again  presented  for  our  consideration,  under  circumstances  of  a  deeply 
interesting  import,  which  can  hardly  fail  to  arrest  the  attention  of  this  body.  If  these  were  claims  of  an 
ordinary  amount  only,  could  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  disposition  which  they  would  receive  at 
the  hands  of  Congress'1  If  there  was  pending  here  a  claim  lor  §100,000,  or  even  a  half  million 
of  dollars,  and  we  were  told  that  the  subject  had  been  favorably  entertained  by  no  less  than  fifteen 
committees  of  the  Senate  and  eleven  of  the  House;  that,  in  no  instance  had  a  committee  of  either 
body  referred  adversely  for  a  quarter  of  a  century;  that  the  Senate  had  expressed  its  sense  in  its 
favor  on  four  different  occasions,  and  the  Hou^e  on  one,  who  would  hesitate  a  moment  to  vot« 
for  it'  Would  debate  be  necessary?  Would  it  even  be  tolerated* 

Having  thus  shown  what  has  been  the  action  of  Congress  on  the  subject,  I  shall  proceed  at 
once  to  consider  the  entire  case  on  its  merits.  And  here  I  would  observe,  that  every  one  conver- 
sant with  the  history  of  the  country,  must  be  aware  that  our  citizens  had  received,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  century,  extensive  injuries  at  the  hands  of  France;  partly  by  the  non- 
fulfillment of  her  engagements,  and  partly  by  aggression  on  our  flag  and  commerce,  alike  viola- 
tive  of  the  obligations  of  existing  treaties,  and  of  the  laws  of  nations.  These  injuries,  and  par- 
ticularly those  of  a  tortious  character,  our  Government  for  a  I  on  a  time  anterior  to  the  30th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1800,  exerted  itself  to  repress,  and  to  obtain  indemnity  at  the  hands  of  France.  The 
whole  diplomacy  of  the  two  countries  was  for  several  years  occupied  with  the  discussion  and  ex- 
amination of  the  various  pretensions  and  claims  which  were  advanced  on  the  one  side  or  the  other. 
Much  irritation  and  acrimony  were  manifested  by  both  Governments,  and  the  two  nations  came 
very  near  beiriij  involved  in  a  desolating  war,  which  was  only  prevented  by  the  Convention  of  the 
30th  of  Sept.  1800.  It  will  be  found,  on  examination  of  the  correspondence,  that  the  claims  made 
by  the  United  States  in  behalf  of  our  citixens  against  France,  were  as  follows,  viz: 

1.  Contract  cases  or  debts  due  from  France  for  supplies  furnished  by  our  citizens  to  her  West 
Irvlia  Islands  and  to  the  Home  Government  or  Continental  France. 


6 

2.  Embargo  cases,  being  claims  for  damages  occasioned  by  an  embargo  laid  by  France  for  her 
own  purposes,  in  1793-4,  on  a  large  number  of  American  vessels  lying  in  the  harbor  of  Bordeaux. 

3.  Vessels  and  their  cargoes  which  had  been  illegally  seized  or  captured,  hut  which  had  not 
been  definitively  condemned  at  the  date  of  the  Convention  of  the  30th  September,  1800. 

4.  Cases  wherein  the  wrong  had  been  fully  consummated,  or  where  France  had,  by  a  final 
condemnation,  appropriated  American  property  to  her  own  use. 

This  last  class  was  mach  more  numerous,  extensive,  and  important  than  all  the  other  classes 
together.  It  comprised  depredations  extending-  over  more  than  seven  years,  which  Were  substan- 
tially of  a  piratical  character,  sweeping  millions  of  American  commerce  from  the  ocean,  and  con- 
signing thousands  of  our  citizens  to  penury  and  want.  To  the  end  that  the  Senate  may  be 
enab'ed  to  form  a  just  appreciation  of  those  enormities,  I  invite  attention  to  the  principal  arretes 
or  decrees  under  or  by  virtue  of  which  the  captures  and  confiscations  were  made. 

1.  Decree  of  the  National  Convention  of  the  9th  of  May,  1793. 

The  Convention,  after  considering  that  "the  flag  of  neutral  powers  was  not  respected  by  the 
enemies  of  France,"  and  that  the  French  people  were  no  longer  permitted  to  fulfil  towards 
the  neutral  powers  in  general  the  vows  they  have  so  often  manifested,  and  which  they  would  con- 
stantly make  for  the  full  and  entire  security  of  commerce  and  navigation,"  proceeded  to  decree  as 
follows: 

"  ART.  1.  The  French  ships  of  war  and  privateers  may  arrest,  and  bring  into  the  ports  of  the 
Republic,  the  neutral  vessels  which  shall  be  laden  wholly,  or  in  part,  either  with  articles  of  pro- 
visions, belonging  to  neutral  nations,  and  destined  for  an  enemy's  port,  or  with  merchandises  be- 
longing to  an  enemy. 

"ART.  2.  The  merchandises  belonging  to  an  enemy  shall  be  declared  good  prixe,and  confisca- 
ted to  the  profit  of  the  captors.  The  articles  of  provisions  belonging  to  neutral  nations,  and  la- 
den for  an  enemy's  port,  shall  be  paid  for  according  to  their  value,  in  the  place  to  which  they  were 
destined. 

"  ART.  3.  In  all  cases,  the  neutral  vessels  shall  be  released,  as  soon  as  the  unlading  of  the  arti- 
cles of  provision  arrested,  or  of  the  merchandise  seized,  shall  have  been  effected.  The  freight 
thereof  shall  be  paid  at  the  rate  which  shall  have  been  stipulated  by  the  persons  who  shipped 
them.  A  just  indemnification  shall  be  allowed  in  proportion  to  their  detention,  by  the  tribunals 
who  are  to  have  cognizance  of  the  validity  of  the  prizes. 

"  ART.  4.  These  tribunals  shall  be  bound  to  transmit,  three  days  after  their  decision,  a  copy  of 
the  inventory  of  the  said  articles  of  provision  or  merchandise,  to  the  Minister  of  Marine,  and 
another  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

"  ART.  5.  The  present  law,  applicable  to  all  the  prizes  which  have  been  made  since  the  decla- 
ration of  war,  shall  cease  to  have  effect,  as  soon  as  the  enemy  Powers  shall  have  declared  free 
and  not  seizable,  although  destined  for  the  ports  of  the  Republic,  the  articles  of  provision  belong- 
ing to  neutral  nations,  and  the  merchandises  laden  in  neutral  vessels,  and  belonging  to  the  Gov- 
ernment or  citizens  of  France. — Vide  Doc,  102,  1st  sess.  19th  Cong.,  p.  43. 

2.  Decree  of  the  Executive  Directory  of  the  2d  July,  1796. 

"  The  Executive  Directory,  considering  that,  if  it  becomes  the  faith  of  the  French  nation  to 
respect  treaties  or  conventions  which  secure  to  the  flags  of  some  neutral  or  friendly  Powers,  com- 
mercial advantages,  the  result  of  which  is  to  be  common  to  the  contracting  Powers,  those  same 
advantages  if  they  should  turn  to  the  benefit  of  our  enemies,  either  through  the  weakness  of  our 
allies,  or  of  neutrals,  or  through  fear,  through  interested  views,  or  through  whatever  motives, 
would  in  fact,  warrant  the  inexecuuon  of  the  articles  in  which  they  were  stipulated — decrees  as 
follows : 

"  All  neutral  or  allied  Powers  shall,  without  delay,  be  notified,  that  the  flag  of  the  French  Re- 
public will  treat  neutral  vessels,  either  as  to  confiscation,  as  to  searches,  or  capture,  in  the  same 
manner  as  they  shall  suffer  the  English  to  treat  them. — Vide  Doc,  102,  p.  149. 

3.  Decree  of  the  Executive  Directory  of  the  2d  March,  1797. 

"In  conformity  to  the  law  of  the  14th  February,  1793,  the  regulations  of  the  21st  October, 
1794,  and  of  the  26th  July,  1778,  as  to  the  manner  of  proving  the  right  of  property  in  neutral 
ships  and  merchandise,  shall  be  executed  according  to  their  form  and  tenor. 

"In  consequence,  every  American  vessel  shall  be  a  guoil  prize  which  has  not  on  board  a  list  of 
the  crew  (role  d'equipage)  in  proper  form,  such  as  is  prescribed  by  the  model  annexed  to  the 
treaty  of  the  6th  February,  1778,  a  compliance  with  which  is  ordered  by  the  25th  and  27th  arti- 
cles of  the  same  treaty."— Vide  Doc.  102,  p.  163. 

4.  Decree  of  the  Council  of  Ancients  and   of  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred  of  the  18th  of 
January,  1798: 


"  ART.  1.  The  character  of  vessels,  relative  to  their  quality  of  neuter  or  enemy,  shall  be  de- 
termined by  their  cargo;  in  consequence,  every  vessel  found  at  sea,  loaded  in  whole  or  in  part 
with  merchandise  the  production  of  England  or  of  her  possessions,  shall  be  declared  good  prize, 
whoever  the  owner  of  these  goods  or  merchandise  may  be. 

"  ART.  2.  Every  foreign  vessel  which,  in  the  course  of  her  voyage,  shall  have  entered  into 
an  English  port,  shall  not  be  admitted  into  a  pore  of  the  French  Republic,  except  in  cases  of  ne- 
cessity? in  which  case  she  shall  be  bound  to  depart  from  the  said  port  as  soon  as  the  causes  of  her 
entry  shall  have  ceased.— Doc.  102,  p.  377. 

The  atrocity  of  these  decrees  will  appear,  in  comparing  them  with  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty 
of  amity  and  commerce  between  the  United  States  and  France  of  the  6th  of  February,  1778,  and 
particularly  with  the  6th,  12th,  13th,  14th,  15th,  2:Jd,  24th,  25th,  26th,  27th,  and  2*lh  articles 
of  that  treaty,  which  guaranty  to  the  United  States,  in  case  France  should  be  involve;!  in  a  war 
with  any  any  other  power,  the  most  entire  and  perfect  freedom  of  the  seas.  I  will  only  recur  to 
the  most  material  of  these  articles,  which  is  the  23d,  and  is  as  follows: 

"  ART.  23.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  all  citizens,  and  singular  the  subjects  of  the  most  Christian 
King,  and  the  citizens,  people,  and  inhabitants  of  the  said  United  States,  to  sail  with  their  ship* 
with  all  manner  of  liberty  and  security,  no  distinction  being  made,  who  are  the  proprietors 
of  the  merchandizes  laden  thereon,  from  any  port  to  the  places  of  those  who  now  are  or  hereafter 
shall  be  at  enmity  with  the  most  Christian  King,  or  the  United  States.  It  shall  likewise  be  law- 
ful for  the  subjects  and  inhabitants  aforesaid,  to  sail  with  the  ships  and  merchandizes  aforemen- 
tioned, and  to  trade  with  the  same  liberty  and  security  from  the  places,  ports,  and  havens  of  those 
who  ar*  enemies  of  both  or  either  party,  without  any  opposition  or  disturbance  whatsoever,  not 
only  directly  from  the  places  aforementioned  to  neutral  places,  but  also  from  one  place  belonging 
to  an  enemy  to  another  place  belonging  to  an  enemy,  whether  they  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  same  Prince  or  under  several.  And  it  is  hereby  stipulated,  that  free  ships  shall  also  give  a 
freedom  to  goods,  and  that  everything  shall  be  deemed  to  be  tree  and  exempt  which  shall  he  found 
on  board  the  ships  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  either  of  the  confederates,  although  the  whole 
lading,  or  any  part  thereof,  should  appertain  to  the  enemies  of  either,  contraband  goods  being  al- 
ways excepted.  It  is  also  agreed  in  like  manner,  that  the  same  liberty  be  extended  to  persons 
who  are  on  board  a  free  ship,  with  this  effect,  that  although  they  be  enemies  to  both  or  either 
party,  they  are  no',  to  be  taken  out  of  that  free  ship  unless  they  are  soldiers  and  in  actual  service 
of  the  enemies." 

The  proceedings  of  France,  under  the  decrees  already  quoted,  were  not  only  a  violation  of  the 
treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  but  were  equally  an  infraction  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and  laid  a 
just  foundation  for  the  most  serious  reclamations  by  the  United  States  in  behalf  of  her  citizens,  and 
imposed  on  our  Government  the  grave  duty  of  pursuing  the  subject  until  ample  indemnities  were 
obtained  at  the  hands  of  the  aggressor.  And  here  I  would  present  the  views  taken  by  the  Ameri- 
can Executive  of  the  character  of  the  decrees  already  quoted,  and  of  the  proceedings  of  France 
under  the  same,  from  which  it  will  be  easy  to  deduce  a  proper  estimate  of  the  rights  of  our  citi- 
zens, and  of  the  obligations  which  the  circumstances  imposed  on  the  United  States.  These  views 
will  sufficiently  appear,  from  the  following  extracts  from  some  of  the  most  material  of  the  papers 
that  have  been  so  long  before  the  Senate  and  the  country. 

1.  Extract  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  June  21,  1797,  respecting  depreda- 
tions committed  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

"  Besides  these  several  decrees,  and  others,  which,  being  more  limited,  the  former  have  super- 
seded, the  old  marine  ordinances  of  France  have  been  revived,  and  enforced  with  severity,  both  in 
Europe  and  the  West  Indies.  The  want  of,  or  informality  in,  a  bill  of  lading;  the  warn  of  a  cer- 
tified list  of  the  passengers  and  crew,  the  supercargo  being  by  birth  a  foreigner,  although  a  natu- 
ralized citizen  of  the  United  S.ates;  the  destruction  of  a  piper  of  any  kind  soever;  an  J  the  want 
of  a  sea-letter,  have  been  deemed  sufficient  to  warrant  a. condemnation  of  American  property,  al- 
though the  proofs  of  the  property  were  indubitable. 

"  The  West  Indies,  as  before  remarked,  have  exhibited  the  most  lamentable  scenes  of  depreda- 
tion. Indeed,  the  conduct  of  the  public  agents  and  of  the  commissioned  cruisers  the;e,  has  sur- 
passed alt  former  example?.  The  American  vessels  have  not  only  been  captured  under  the  decrees 
before  mentioned,  but,  when  brought  to  trial  in  the  French  tribunals,  the  vessels  and  cargoes  have 
been  condemned,  without  admitting  the  owners  or  their  agents  to  make  any  defence. 

This  seems  to  be  done  systematically,  and  for  the  obvious  purpose  of  ensuring  condemnation. 
By  this  monstrous  abuse  in  judicial  proceedings,  frauds  and  falsehoods,  as  well  as  flimsy  anil 
shamrless  pretexts,  pass  unexamined  and  oncontra dieted, and  are  made  the  foundation  of  sentence* 
•f  condemnation. 

"The  persons,  also,  of  our  citizens  have  been  beaten,  insulted,  and  cruelly  imprisoned,  and  in  the 
forms  used  towards  prisoners  of  war,  they  have  been  exchanged  with  the  British  for  Frenchmen. 
American  property  going  to,  or  coming  from  neutral  or  even  French  ports,  has  been  seized  ;  it  has 


8 

even  been  forcibly  taken  when  in  their  own  ports,  without  any  pretence,  or  no  other  than  that 
they  wanted  it.  At  the  same  time,  their  cruizers  are  guilty  of  wanton  and  barbarous  excesses,  by 
detaining,  plundering,  firing  at,  burning  and  distressing  American  vessels." — Doc.  102,  p.  407. 

2  Extract  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  on  the  transactions  relating  to  the  United 
States  and  France,  since  the  last  communication  to  Congress  on  that  subject,  dated  January  18, 

1849: 

"  But  what  has  been  more  notorious  than  French  depredations  on  neutral,  and,  especially,  on 
American  commerce,  in  violation  of  treaties  and  the  law  of  nations  ?  These  have  been  coeval 
with  the  existing  war  in  Europe;  but  were  multiplied  under  the  loose  decree  of  the  Executive 
Directory,  passed  the  2d  of  July,  1796,  declaring  that  'the  flag  of  the  French  Republic  will  treaf 
neutral  vessels,  either  as  to  confiscation,  to  searches,  or  to  capture,  in  the  same  manner  as  they 
shall  suffer  the  English  to  treat  them.' 

"This  decree  committed  the  whole  commerce  of  neutrals,  in  the  first  instance,  to  ths  rapacity 
of  the  French  privateers,  and  then  to  the  discretion  of  their  agents,  consuls,  and  tribunals.  These 
had  only  to  say,  tiuly  or  falsely,  that  the  English  treated  neutrals  in  any  given  way,  and  then  they 
were  to  treat  them  in  the  same  manner.  Accordingly,  we  have  seen  ^anthonax  and  Raimond, 
Commissioners  of  the  French  Government  in  St.  Domingo,  in  their  adjudication  of  an  American 
vessel,  on  the  10th  of  January,  1797,  declare:  'that  the  resolution  (or  decree)  passed  by  the  Ex- 
ecutive Directory,  on  the  2d  of  July.  1796,  prescribes  to  all  the  armed  vessels  of  the  Republic, 
and  the  armed  vessels  belonging  to  individuals,  to  treat  neutral  vessels  in  the  same  manner  as  they 
suffer  the  English  to  treat  them;*  and  'that  it  is  in  consequence  of  the  above  resolution  of  the 
Executive  Directory,  and  in  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  the  English  Government,  in  the 
Antilles,  treats  neutral  vessels,  that  the  commission  passed  their  resolution  of  the  7th  of  January, 
by  which  they  declare  all  neutral  vessels,  bound  to  or  from  English  ports,  to  be  legal  prize.'  From 
these  facts,  and  the  tenor  of  the  decree  itself,  we  can  form  but  one  conclusion,  that  it  ma*  framed 
in  such,  indefinite  terms  on  purpose  to  give  scope  for  arbitrary  constructions,  and,  consequently, 
jor  nnlim>te<l  oppression  and  vexation. 

"  But,  without  waiting  for  this  decree,  the  Commissioners  of  the  French  Government,  at  St. 
Domingo,  began  their  piracies  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States;  and,  in  February,  1797, 
wrote  to  the  Minister  of  Marine,  (and  the  extract  of  the  letter  appeared  in  the  official  journal  of 
the  Executive  Directory,  of  the  5th  of  June,)  ''That,  having  found  no  resource  in  finance,  and 
knowing  the  unfriendly  disposition  of  the  Americans,  and  to  avoid  perishing  in  distress,  they  had 
armed  lor  cruising;  and  that,  already,  eighty  seven  cruisers  were  at  sea;  and  that,  for  three 
months  preceding,  the  administration  had  subsisted,  and  individuals  been  enriched,  with  the  pro- 
ducts of  those  prizes.'  'That  the  decree  of  the  2d  of  July  was  not  known  by  them  until  fire 
months  afterwards.  But  (say  they)  the  shocking  conduct  of  the  Americans,  and  the  indirect 
knowledge  ol  the  intentions  of  our  Government,  made  it  our  duty  to  order  reprisals,  even  before 
we  had  received  the  official  notice  of  the  decree.'  '  They  felicitate  themselves  that  American  ves- 
sels were  daily  taken;  and  declare  that  they  had  learnt,  by  divers  persons  from  the  continent,  that 
the  Americans  were  perfidious,  corrupt,  the  friends  of  England,  and  that,  therefore,  their  vessels 
no  longer  entered  the  French  poits,  unless  carried  in  by  force.' 

'*  After  this  recital  before  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred,  Pastoret  makes  the  following  remarka- 
ble  reflections: 

"  On  reading  this  letter,  we  shou'd  think  that  we  had  been  dreaming  ;  that  we  had  been  trans- 
ported into  a  savage  country,  where  men,  still  ignorant  of  the  empire  of  morals  and  of  laws,  com- 
mit crimes  without  shame  and  without  remorse,  and  applaud  themselves  for  their  robberies  as 
Paulus  ^Emilius  or  Cato  would  have  praised  themselves  for  an  eminent  service  rendered  to  their 
country.  Cruisers  armed  against  a  friendly  nation  !  Reprisals,  when  it  is  we  ourselves  who  at- 
tack !  Reprisals  against  a  nation  that  has  not  taken  a  single  vessel  of  ours!  Riches  acquired  by 
the  confiscation  of  the  ships  of  a  People  to  whom  we  are  united  by  treaties,  and  whom  no  decla- 
ration of  war  had  separated  from  us  !  The  whole  discourse  of  the  agents  may  be  reduced  to 
these  few  words : 

"  Ha\ing  nothing  wherewith  to  buy,  I  seize  ;  I  make  myself  amends  for  the  property  which  I 
want,  b^  the  piracy  which  enriches  me  ;  and  then  I  slander  those  whom  I  have  pillaged."  "  This 
ia  robbery  justified  by  selfishness  and  calumny."  Yet  Santhonax,  one  of  these*'  robbers,"  and 
the  chief  of  those  directorial  agents,  continued  in  office,  and  going  a  few  months  afterwards  from 
St.  Domingo  to  France,  was  received  as  a  member  into  one  of  the  legislative  councils. 

Pastoret  also  adverts  to  a  letter  from  Merlin,  then  Minister  of  Justice,  and  now  a  member  of 
the  Executive  Directory,  to  Mr.  Skipwith,  Consul  General  of  the  United  States,  which  also  ap- 
peared in  the  Journal  of  the  Directory  ;  and  quotes  the  following  passage :  '  Let  your  G<  vernment 
break  the  inconceivable  treaty  which  is  concluded  on  the  19th  of  November,  1794,  with  our  most 
implacable  enemies  ;  and  immediately  the  French  Republic  will  cease  to  apply  in  its  own  favor, 
the  regulations  in  that  treaty,  which  favor  England  to  the  injury  of  France  ;  and  I  warrant  you 
that  we  shal!  not  see  an  appeal  to  those  regulations,  in  any  tribunal  to  support  unjust  preten- 
sions.' 


"  Have  I  (says  Pagtoret)  read  this  rightly?  Unjust  prr.teninnn*?  Could  it  be  po*si  hie,  that 
they  should  thus  have  been  characterized  by  the  Minister  who  is  himself  their  nircnt  and  de- 
fender ?"— Doc.  10-2,  p.  434. 

4.  Extract  from  the  instructions  to  Messrs.  Ellsworth,  Davie  and  Murray.  Envoys  E.xfnK-rdinary 
and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  to  the  French  Republic,  dated  October  2 '2, 
1799. 

"  The  second  proposition,  respecting  the  role  d'equipnge,  as  well  as  the  first  should  be  insisted 
on.  Until  the  decree  of  the  Directory  of  March  2d,  1797,  was  passed,  and  we  had  felt  its  fatal 
effects,  we  had  no  idea  of  the  meaning  which  the  Freneh  applied  to  the  phrase,  role  d  'equipage. 
In  the  Consular  Convention  between  the  United  States  and  France,  article  ninth,  which  relates 
to  deserters  from  vessels,  the  document  is  described  in  the  French  by  the  words  '  dt-s  n-gis'ers  du 
bailment  ou  role  d' equipage,'  and  in  the  English  part  of  the  Convention  by  the  words  '  the  re- 
gisters of  the  vessel  or  ship's  roll."  And  this  paper  was  to  be  produced  to  the  proper  judge  to 
prove  a  deserter  to  belong  to  the  vessel  in  question.  The  law  or  usage  of  each  nation  w  is  incon- 
testibly  to  direct  what  was  proper  for  its  own  vessels  in  this  respect.  If  an  American  master 
claimed  from  a  Judge  in  France  his  warrant  to  arrest  a  deserter,  he  must  have  produced  his 
'  ships  roll,'  or  what  in  the  United  States  is  called  his  shipping  puper  ;  which  is  a  contract  digued 
by  all  the  persons  composing  a  vessel's  crew. 

"  The.  propriety  nnd  necessity  of  a  ship's  roll,  was  in  the  year  1770,  sanctioned  a  id  enforced 
by  an  act  of  L  ongress. 

"  And  without  such  a  written  contract,  the  master,  besides  being  subjected  to  other  disadvan- 
tages, could  not  claim  his  men  when  they  deserted.  This  ship's  roll,  every  American  master, 
bound  on  a  foreign  voyage,  takes  on  board  his  vessel  ;  and  unquestionably  every  American  vessel 
captured  and  condemned  by  the  French  for  the  want  of  a  role  d'equipage,  has  nevertheless  been 
possessed  of  the  ship's  roll,  just  described  ;  and  it  is  the  only  list  of  the  ship's  crew,  which  could 
ever  have  been  contemplated  by  the  United  States,  as  necessary  for  American  vessels.  There 
never  was,  indeed,  any  intimation  on  the  part  of  France,  from  1778,  when  the  treaty  of  amity 
and  commerce  was  made,  until  the  passing  of  the  decree  of  the  Directory  in  March  1797:  that  a 
role  d'equipage,  other  than  the  ship's  roil  or  shipping  paper,  would  be  required.  It  was  then 
suddenly  demanded  ;  and  the  decree  (like  the  law  of  January  1795,  respecting  articles  of  the 
produce  or  manufacture  of  Great  Britain,)  was  instamly  enforced,  and  became  a  snare  10  the 
multitudes  of  American  vessels,  which,  for  want  of  previous  notice,  would  not  have  on  botird  the 
document  in  question  ;  if  their  Government  should  permit  them  to  receive  a  document  which  they 
were  under  no  obligation  to  produce.  For.it  cannot,  with  any  semblance  of  justice,  be  pretended 
that  the  vessels  of  one  nation  are  bound  to  furnish  themselves  with  pnpers  in  forms  prescribed 
by  the  laws  of  another.  And  if  we  resort  to  the  treaty  of  1778,  or  to  the  sea-letter,  or  passport 
annexed  to  it,  on  which  letter  the  Directory  pretended  to  found  their  decree  concerning  the  "  role 
d'equipage,"  we  shall  see  that  these  words  are  not  to  be  found  in  either." — Doc.  102,  p.  563. 

No  language  which  I  can  use  would  give  to  the  Senate  a  more  vivid  conception  of  the  enormi- 
ties committed  by  France  on  the  property  and  persons  of  American  citizens — injuries  which  it 
was  the  solemn  duty  of  our  government  to  redress  at  any  and  every  hazard.  To  protect  the  sub- 
ject from  the  aggressions  of  foreign  powers  is  one  of  the  first  duties  of  every  Government,  and  is 
one  of  the  returns  which  the  supreme  power  of  the  State  is  ever  bound  to  make  for  the  allegiance 
of  its  citizens.  But  in  this  case  ihere  was  not  only  this  general  o  )ligation,  but  a  very  special  one 
resulting  from  the  faith  of  the  Government  expressly  pledged,  as  will  appear  from  th^  following 
extract  from  the  circular  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  addressed  to  the  merchants  of  the  United  States,  dated 
August  27,  1793: 

"  Complaint  having  been  made  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  of  some  instances  of 
unjustifiable  vexation  and  spoliation,  committed  on  our  merchant  vessels  by  the  privateers  of  the 
powers  at  war,  and  it  being  possible  that  other  instances  may  have  happened,  of  which  no  infor- 
mation has  been  given  to  the  Government,  I  have  it  in  charge  from  the  President  to  assure  the 
merchants  of  the  United  States,  concerned  in  foreign  commerce  or  navigation,  that  due  attention 
will  be  paid  to  any  injuries  they  may  suffer  on  the  high  seas,  or  in  foreign  countries,  contrary  to 
the  law  of  nations,  or  to  existing  treaties;  and  that,  on  their  forwarding  hither  well  authenticated 
evidence  of  the  same,  proper  proceedings  will  be  adopted  for  their  relief." — Dec.  102,  p.  216. 

The  obligations,  both  general  and  special,  thus  imposed,  were  greatly  enhanced  by  the  vast  in- 
terests at  stake.  There  exists  no  where  in  our  public  archives  an  authentic  statement  of  the  num- 
ber of  vessels  seized  by  the  French,  nor  of  the  amount  of  the  losses  sustained  by  our  citizens.  To 
the  report  submitted  by  Mr.  Holmes  to  the  Senate,  (2d  Sees.,  19th  Cong.,)  there  is  appended  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Clay,  then  Secretary  of  State,  transmitting  a  list  of  444  vessels  captured  between 
1793  and  1800,  of  which  he  observes  that  it  is  believed  to  be  "essentially  deficient  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  existing  claims  for  the  period  which  it  comprehends."  No  doubt  it  is  so.  I  have  seen  a 
list  of  such  vessels  prepared  by  a  gentleman  residing  in  this  city,  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
whole  subject,  specifying  in  most  cases  the  names  of  the  vessel,  master,  and  claimants,  and  the 
port  to  which  she  belonged,  according  to  which  the  whole  number  was  two  thousand  two  hundred 


10 

and  thirty-two  vessels!  from  which  deductions  should  be  made  as  follows:  (1.)  Vessels  paid  for 
under  special  arretes,  (soon  after  the  a  Degressions  commenced,)  of  which  there  were  14  ;  (2)  ves- 
sels for  which  payment  was  made  under  the  Convention  of  1803,  usually  called  the  Louisiana 
Convention,  viz  :  embargo  cases  103,  captures  14,  and  contract  vessels  293  ;  and  (3.)  vessels 
accounted  for  by  Spain  under  the  Florida  treaty,  173,  and  this  will  leave  a  balance  of  1735  ves- 
sels and  their  cargoes  wholly  unprovided  for.  The  14  cases  of  captures  compensated  by  the 
Louisiana  Convention,  were  those  of  vessels  not  definitively  condemned  at  the  date  of  the 
Convention  of  the  30th  September,  1800,  which  France  bound  herself  to  restore  ;  but  the 
1735  vessels  just  specified,  belonged  to  the  fourth  class  already  adverted  to,  or  in  other  words, 
they  were  vessels  which  had  been  definitively  condemned  at  the  date  of  the  Convention  of  the 
30th  of  September,  and  they  remain  uncompensated  to  this  day.  It  is  believed  that  the  aggre- 
gate of  property  lost  by  the  condemnation  of  these  vessels  and  their  cargoes,  could  have  amounted 
to  little  le.ss  than  $10.000,000,  and  how  far  this  immense  sum  will  be  augmented  by  the  unknown 
cases,  which  will  only  appear  on  the  organization  of  a  commission,  is  uncertain.  We  may  rest 
assured,  however,  that  the  amount  proposed  by  the  bill  will  fall  far  short  of  making  full  compen- 
sation to  the  claimants. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  our  Government  has  not  made  the  slightest  effort  to  obtain  indem- 
nity at  the  hands  of  France  for  this  class  of  cases  since  the  Convention  of  the  30tii  of  September. 
And  here  I  would  observe,  that  this  dereliction  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  is  not  to  be  at- 
tributed to  any  want  of  a  proper  sense  of  the  atirocities  committed  by  France,  as  will  appear  from 
the  extracts  already  submitted  from  the  reports  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  the  21st  June,  1797, 
and  18th  of  January,  1799,  and  from  the  instructions  to  Messrs.  Ellsworth,  Davie  and  Murray,  of 
the  22d  of  October,  1799 — nor  to  any  indisposition  felt  by  the  American  authorities  to  prosecute 
the  just  claims  of  our  citizens,  for  injuries  received  at  the  hands  of  foreign  governments,  to  a  full 
and  complete  indemnity.  No  Government  on  earth  has  been  more  resolute  and  vigilant  than  ours 
has  been  in  asserting  the  rights  of  our  citizens  in  this  regard.  Since  the  date  of  the  Convention 
of  the  30th  of  September,  1800,  the  United  States  have  negotiated  no  less  than  sixteen  treaties 
and  conventions  with  foreign  powers,  having  this  object  in  view — the  last  being  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  Portugal — and  have  obtained  indemnities  to  the  amount  of  many  millions  of  dollars.  We 
have  entered  since  that  date  into  two  conventions  of  that  character  with  France — the  first,  the 
Convention  of  the  30th  of  April,  1803,  and  the  second,  of  the  4th  July,  1831,  the  former  being 
usually  o;illed  the  Louisiana,  and  the  latter  Mr.  Rives'  Convention — by  the  first  we  obtained  in- 
demnities to  the  amount  of  20,000,000  of  francs,  and  by  the  second  to  the  amount  of  25,000,000  ; 
and  both  failed  to  make  any  provision  for  class  No.  4.  Nay,  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  April, 
1803,  stipulates  in  express  terms  that  no  part  of  the  indemnity  therein  provided, should  be  applied 
in  satisfaction  of  the  fourth  class,  or  captures  which  had  been  prosecuted  to  final  condemnation  at 
the  date  of  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  September,  1800.  Here  I  invite  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing articles  of  the  Convention  of  1803: 

AKT.  1.  "  The  debts  due  by  France  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  contracted  before  the  8th 
of  Vindemiere,  9th  year  of  the  French  Republic,  (30th  September,  1800,)  shall  be  paid  according 
to  the  tollowing  regulations,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent,  to  commence  from  the  period  when  the 
amounts  and  vouchers  were  presented  to  the  French  Government." 

AKT.  2.  "  The  debts  provided  for  by  the  preceding  article  are  those  whose  result  is  comprised  in 
the  conjectural  note  annexed  to  the  present  convention, and  which,  with  the  interest,  cannot  exceed 
the  SHIM  of  twenty  millions  of  francs.  The  claims  comprised  in  the  said  note  wh'ch  fall  within 
the  exceptions  of  the  following  articles,  shall  not  be  admitted  to  the  benefit  of  this  provision." 

ART.  3.  "  The  principal  and  interest,  of  the  said  debts  shall  be  discharged  by  the  United  States, 
by  orders  drown  by  their  minister  plenpotentiary  on  their  treasury  ;  these  orders  stiall  be  payable 
sixty  days  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  treaty,  and  the  conventions  signed  this  day, 
and  after  possession  shall  be  given  of  Louisiana  by  the  commissaries  of  France  to  those  of  the 
United  States." 

A'  T.  4.  "  It  is  expressly  agreed,  that  the  preceding  articles  shall  comprehend  no  deb  s  but  such 
as  are  due  to  citizens  of, the  Un'ted  States,  who  have  been  and  are  yet  creditors  «>f  France,  for 
supplies,  for  embargoes,  and  prizes  made  at  sea,  in  which  the  appeal  has  been  properly  lodged 
within  the  time  mentioned  in  the  said  convention,  8th  Vendemiere,  ninth  year,  (30th  September, 
1800.") 

ART.  5.  "  The  preceding  articles  shall  apply  only,  1st.  to  captures  of  which  the  council  of 
prizes  shall  have  ordered  restitution,  it  being  well  understood  that  the  claimant  cannot  have  re- 
course to  the  United  States,  otherwise  than  he  might  have  had  to  the  Government  of  the  French 
Republic,  and  only  in  case  of  insutHciency  of  the  captors.  2d.  The  debts  mentioned  in  the  said 
fifth  article  of  the  Convention,  contracted  before  the  8th  Vendermiere,  Art.  9,  (30  Sept.  1800,)  the 
payment  of  which  has  been  heretofore  claimed  of  the  actual  Government  of  France,  and  for 
which  the  creditors  have  a  right  to  the  protection  of  the  United  States  ;  the  said  fifth  article  does 
not  comprehend  prizes  whose  condemnation  has  been  or  shall  be  confirmed."  *  *  *  *  * 

The  20,000,000  of  francs  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  was  part  of  the  purchase  money  for 
Louisiana,  and  the  payment  of  the  debts  or  claims  mentioned,  therefore,  were  in  effect  made  by 
France.  The  words  of  exclusion  contained  in  the  4th  article  were  intended  to  embrace  the  4th 


11 

class  already  named,  or  captures  definitively  condemned  on  the  30th  of  September,  1800,  and 
this  exclusion  is  reiterated  by  equivalent  language,  in  ihe  5th  article.  The  utter  abandonment  of 
this  cl.tss  of  claims  by  our  Government  since  1800,  and  the  great  pains  taken  to  cut  them  <->lf  from 
all  participation  in  the  fund  provided  by  the  Convention  of  1803,  would,  considering  the  palpable 
character  of  the  wrongs  committed  by  France,  and  the  unquestionable  right  of  our  citizens  to  re- 
dress, be  inexplicable,  were  not  the  difficulty  susceptible  of  an  easy  solution  by  a  recurrence  to 
the  stipulations  of  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  September,  1800.  To  this  end  it  \viil  be  ma- 
terial to  refer  only  to  the  following  articles: 

ART.  2.  "  The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  two  parties  not  being  able  to  agree  at  present 
respecting  the  treaty  of  alliance  of  Gth  February,  1778,  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  the 
same  date,  and  the  Convention  of  14th  of  November,  1788,  nor  upon  the  indemnities  mutually 
due  or  claimed  ;  the  parties  will  negotiate  further  on  these  subjects  at  a  convenient  time,  and  un- 
til they  may  have  agreed  upon  these  points,  the  said  treaties  and  convention  shall  have  no  opera- 
tion and  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  shall  be  regulated  as  follows  : 

ART.  3.  "  The  public  ships  which  have  been  taken  on  oae  part  and  the  other,  or  which  may  be 
taken  before  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  shall  be  restored. 

ART.  4.  "  Property  captured,  and  not  yet  definitively  condemned,  or  which  may  be  captured 
before  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  (contraband  goods  destined  to  an  enemy's  port  excepted,) 
shall  be  mutually  restored.  *  *  *  »*  *  *  .»  * 

This  article  shall  take  effect  from  the  date  of  the  signature  of  the  present  invention.  And  if.  from 
the  date  of  the  said  signature,  any  property  shall  be  condemned  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  said 
Convention,  before  the  knowledge  of  this  stipulation  shall  be  obtained,  the  property  so  condemned 
shall,  without  delay,  be  restored  or  paid  for." 

ART.  5.  "  The  debts  contracted  by  one  of  the  two  nations  with  individuals  of  the  other,  or  by 
individuals  of  one  with  the  individuals  of  the  other,  shall  be  paid,  or  the  payment  may  be  prose- 
cuted in  the  same  manner  as  if  there  had  been  no  misunderstanding  between  the  two  States.  But 
this  clause  shall  not  extend  to  indemnities  claimed  on  account  of  captures  or  confiscations." 

It  appears  from  the  2d  article  of  this  Convention  that  there  were  certain  subjects  of  difference 
then  pending  between  the  two  countries  in  regard  to  which  their  Ministers  could  not  agree,  and 
therefore,  the  parties  postponed  a  final  arrangement  in  respect  to  them,  until  a  more  "  convenient 
time."  It  is  well  known  that  the  pretensions  advanced  on  the  part  of  France,  consisted  in  assert- 
ing the  validity,  and  the  (then)  binding  force  of  the  treaties  of  alliance,  and  of  amity  and  com- 
merce of  the  6th  of  February,  1778,  and  of  the  Consular  Convention  of  the  14th  of  November, 
1788;  and  in  claiming  certain  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities,  which  were  thereby,  originally 
secured  to  France,  and  which  her  ministers  insisted  still  remained,  and  the  pretensions  made  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  consisted  in  maintaining  (as  our  Ministers  did  most  strenuously)  the 
right  of  our  citizens  to  a  full  indemnity  for  injuries,  comprised  in  class,  No.  4.  The  claims  of 
France  were  national  in  their  character — those  of  the  United  States,  private — both  were  pending 
at  the  same  time,  and  the  parties  not  being  able  to  agree,  the  whole  subject  was  adjourned  over  to 
a  future  day.  In  this  state  of  the  case,  the  Convention  was  ratified  by  the  French  Executive, 
and  was  transmitted  to  the  President,  who  laid  it  before  the  Senate,  (in  conformity  with  our  Con- 
stitution,) for  its  advice.  That  body  took  up  the  subject,  and  in  the  first  place  proposed  a  new 
article  limiting  the  Convention  to  the  period  of  eight  years,  and  being  desirous  of  putting  an  end 
to  all  existing  differences,  expunged  the  2d  article,  and  advised  its  ratification  in  its  amended  form, 
which  was  accordingly  done.  This  made  it  necessary  to  return  the  Convention  to  France  ;  her 
Government  seems  to  have  hesitated  long,  but  finally  ratified  the  amended  Convention  with  this 
significant  declaration,  "that  by  this  retrenchment,"  ;that  of  the  2d  article,)  "the  two  States  re- 
nounce the  respective  pretensions  which  are  the  object  of  the  said  article."  Thus  Bonaparte,  then 
first  Consul,  gave  a  construction  to  the  act  of  the  Senate  in  expunging  the  2d  article.  He  de- 
clared it  was  to  be  understood  that  the  parties  by  such  retrenchment  intended  a  mutual  exoneration 
of  claims,  and  by  off  setting  the  one  against  the  other,  to  extinguish  them  forever.  This  brought  the 
Convention  back  to  the  United  States  for  the  consideration  of  our  Executive,  (Mr.  JMFtnsox,) 
and  he  (admitting  Bonaparte  was  right,)  deemed  it  to  be  his  duty  to  take  the  sense  of  the  Senate 
on  the  subject;  and  that  body  by  declaring  the  Convention  already  ratified,  concurred  in  the  views 
of  the  French  Government  as  expressed  in  the  act  of  ratification.  Even  before  the  final  action  of 
the  body,  the  President  (Mr.  JEFFKR^OX)  had  no  difficulty  in  coming  to  the  same  result ;  for 
Mr.  Madison,  then  Secretary  of  State,  under  date  of  18th  of  December,  1801,  wrote  to  Mr.  Liv- 
ingston, our  Minister  at  France,  as  follows: 

"I  am  authorised  to  say,  that  the  President  does  not  regard  the  declaratory  clause  as  more  than  a 
legitimate  inference  from  the  rejection  by  the  Senate  of  the  2d  article;  and  that  he  is  disposed  to 
go  on  with  the  measures  due  under  the  compact  to  the  French  Republic." 

In  this  novel  and  peculiar  way,  the  bargain  was  consummated,  and  France^  was  released  forever 
from  these  spoliation  claims,  in  consideration  of  the  release  which  the  United  States  obtained  from 


12 

the  national  claims  of  France.  Thus  we  learn  why  it  was  that  so  much  particularity  was  used 
to  exclude  the  4th  class  of  claims  from  participating  in  the  fund  created  by  the  <  'onvention  of  1803, 
and  why  our  Government  has  not  sought  indemnity  therefor,  at  the  hands  of  France,  since  the 
30th  of  'September,  1800. 

That  the  two  Governments  really  intended  an  extinguishment  of  their  respective  claims  (the 
release  of  the  one  being  the  consideration  of  the  release  of  the  other)  may  be  proved  by  an  abun- 
dance of  authority  from  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

FRENCH  AUTHORITY. 

1.  Scon  after  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  September  was  finally  ratified,  it  became  necessary 
for  the  French  Executive  to  bring  the  subject  to  the  notice  of  the  Legislature,  to  one  branch  of 
which,  called  the  "  Corps  Legislatif,"  citizen  Roderer  (one  of  the  Ministers  on  the  part  of  France 
who  negotiated  the  Convention  of  1800)  made,  on  the  26th  of  November,  1801,  full  explanations 
of  the  views  and  motives  of  the  French  Government  in  negotiating  that  Convention,  when  he  re- 
marked (on  the  point  now  under  consideration)  as  follows  : 

"  The  reservation  of  opening  ulterior  negotiations  relative  to  the  treaties  and  ihe  indemnities 
has  been  consigned  in  the  second  article,  of  which  it  has  been  the  sole  object.  But  the  fear  of 
awakening  lively  discussions,  and  of  viewing  any  alteration  in  the  good  haimony  which  ought  to 
be  the  happy  result  of  the  other  stipulations,  has  caused  th«s  second  article  to  be  suppressed  in  the 
acts  of  rai'tication.  This  suppression  is  a  prudent  and  amicable  renunciation  of  ike  respective 
prettnsions  which  were  expressed  in  the  article" 

2.  Buonnparte,  while  at  St.  Helena,  is  reported  by  Mr.  Gourgand,  in  his  Memoirs,'  vol.  2,  p. 
95,  to  have  adverted  to  the  same  subject,  remarking: 

"The  suppression  of  this  article"  (the  2d)  "at  once  put  an  end  to  the  privileges  which  France 
had  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  annulled  the  just  claims  which  America  might  have  made  for 
injuries  done  in  time  of  peace." 

AMERICAN  AUTHORITY. 

1.  Extract  from  a  letter,  dated   April  17,  1803,  from  Mr.  Livingston,  American  Minister  at 
Paris,  to  M.  Talleyrand,  Minister  of  Exteiior  Relations  of  the  French  Republic: 

"It  will,  SK,  be  well  recollected  by  the  distinguished  characters  who  had  the  management  of  the 
negotiation,  that  the  payment  for  illegal  captures,  with  damages  and  indemnities,  was  demanded 
on  one  side,  and  the  renewal  of  the  treaty  of  1788  on  the  other,  that  they  were,  considered  as  of 
equivalent  value,  and  that  they  only  formed  the  subject  of  the  2d  article."— Doc.  102,  I  sess.  19 
Cong.  p.  717. 

2.  Extract  from  a  letter,  dated  February  6,  1S04,  from  Mr.   Madison,  Secretary  of  State,  to 
Mr.  C buries  Pinckney,  American  Minister  to  Spain: 

"The  claims,  again,  from  which  France  was  released  "  (meaning  by  the  suppression  of  the  2d 
article)  "were  admitted  by  France,  and  the  release  wax  for  a  valuable  cant-irterat'on  in  a  corres- 
oondei  t  release  of  the  United  States  f ram  certain  claims  on  them.  The  claims  we  make  on  Spain 
were  never  admitted  by  France,  nor  made  on  France  by  the  Uuited  Statet;  they  made  no  part  of 
the  barcain  with  her,  and  could  not  be  included  in  the  release." — Doc.  102,  1  sess.  19  Cong,  p, 
795. 

Thus  it  appears  that  our  Government,  by  the  suppression  of  the  2d  article,  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  declaration  of  the  French  Executive,  (contained  in  1he  act  of  ratification,)  to  the  effect 
that  the  two  states  were  to  be  understood  to  renounce  thereby  "the  respective, pretensions  which 
were  the  object  of  the  2d  article,"  made  a  bargain  with  France,  releasing  her  f rout  these  spolia-  . 
tion  claims,  (according  to  Mr.  Madison,)  fur  A  VAI.UADLK  CONSIDKUATIOX,  in  a  correspondent 
release  -tfthe  United  State*  from  certain  claims  on  them,"  which  claims,  on  the  one  s;de  and  the 
other,  were  (as  Mr  Livingston  observed)  "considered  of  equivalent  value,"  making  their  renun- 
ciation :as  Mr.  Roderer  suggested)  "prudent  and  amicable;"  and  this  "at  once"  (as  Bonaparte 
declared)  "  put  an  end  to  the  privileges  which  France  had  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  annulled 
the  ju*t  claims  which  America  might  have  made  for  injuries  done  in  time  of  peace." 

The  view  then  taken  by  Bonaparte,  Roderer,  Madison,  and  Livingston,  of  the  object  and  ef- 
fect of  the  suppression  of  the  2d  article,  is  fully  sustained  by  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  report  of  the  20th 
of  May,  1826,  from  which  I  submit  an  extract,  as  follows: 

"The  two  contracting  parties  thus  agreed,  by  the  retrenchment  of  the  second  article,  mutually 
to  renounce  the  respective  pretensions  which  were  the  object  of  that  article.  The  pretensions  of 
the  United  States,  to  which  allusion  is  thus  made,  arose  out  of  the  spoliations,  under  color  of 
French  authority,  in  contravention  to  law  and  existing  treaties.  Those  of  France  sprung  from 


13 

the  treaty  of  alliance  of  the  6th  of  February,  1778,  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  the  same 
date,  and  the  convention  of  the  14th  of  November,  1788.  Whatever  obligations  or  indemnities 
from  those  sources  either  party  had  a  right  to  demand,  were  respectively  waived  and  abandoned, 
and  the  consideration  which  induced  one  party  to  renounce  his  pretensions,  was  that  of  the  renun- 
ciation by  the  other  party  of  his  pretensions.  What  was  the  value  of  the  obligations  and  indem- 
nities so  reciprocally  renounced,  can  only  he  matter  of  speculation.  The  amount  of  the  indemni- 
ties due  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  was  very  large,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  obligation 
was  great  (to  specify  no  other  Fiench  pretensions)  under  which  the  United  States  were  placed, 
in  the  llth  article  of  the  Ueaty  of  alliance  of  6th  of  February,  1778,  by  which  they  were  bound 
forever  to  guarantee  from  that  time,  the  then  possessions  of  the  crown  of  France  in  America,  as 
well  as  those  which  it  might  acquire  by  the  future  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain;  all  these 
possessions  bavin?  been,  it  is  believed,  conquered  at,  or  not  long  after,  the  exchange  of  the  ratifi- 
cations of  the  Convention  of  September,  1800,  by  the  arms  of  Great  Britain,  from  France." 

But  in  order  to  a  just  and  accurate  appreciation  of  the  entire  subject  it  is  necessary  for  me  to 
bring  before  the  Senate  the  pretentious  advanced  by  the  French  Government  in  opposition  to  the 
claims  of  our  own,  and  to  show  what  were  their  character  and  extent,  and  then  to  trace  the  nego- 
tiation between  the  American  Envoys,  Ellsworth,  Davie,  and  Murray,  and  the  French  Ministers, 
Joseph  Bonaparte,  Fleurieu,  and  Roderer,  step  by  step  to  the  consummation  of  the  30th  Septem- 
ber, 1800;  from  all  of  which  I  shall  deduce  the  correctness  of  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Madison, 
that  we  obtained  from  France  "  a  valuable  consideration"  for  releasing  her  from  the  claims  now 
before  the  Senate. 

FRENCH  CLAIMS  OR  PRETENSIONS. 

To  present  these  claims  properly,  it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  the  1  1th  article  of  the  treaty  of 
alliance,  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  and  to  the  12th  article 
of  the  Consular  Convention  of  the  18th  of  November,  1788,  by  which  it  will  appear  that  France 
acquired,  in  consideration  of  her  engagements  to  co-operate  with  all  her  forces  to  assert  the  inde- 
pendence and  sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  and  the  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  country, 
certain  rights  and  privileges  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  nations,  and  particularly  Great  Britain, 
her  hereditary  enemy,  of  the  utmost  importance  to  her,  and  in  no  small  degree  onerous  and  em- 
barrassing to  us. 

(The  \\th  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Alliance.} 

"  The  two  parties  guarantee  mutually  from  the  present  time,  and  forever  against  all  other 
powers,  to  wit:  The  United  States  to  his  Most  Christian  Majesty,  the  present  possessions  of  the 
crown  of  France  in  America,  as  well  as  those  which  it  may  acquire  by  the  future  treaty  of  peace: 
And  his  most  Christian  Majesty  guaranties  on  his  part  to  the  United  States,  their  liberty,  sove- 
reignty, and  independence,  absolute  and  unlimited,  as  well  in  matters  of  government  as  com- 
merce, and  also  their  possessions,  and  the  additions  or  conquests  that  their  confederation  may  ob- 
tain during  the  war  from  any  of  the  dominions  now  or  heretofore  possessed  by  Great  Britain  hi 
North  America,  conformable  to  the  5th  and  6th  articles  above  written,  the  whole  as  their  posses- 
sions shall  be  fixed  and  assured  to  the  said  States  at  the  moment  of  the  cessation  of  their  present 
war  with  England." 

(nth  Article  of  the   Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce.} 

"It  shall  be  lawful  for  ships  of  war  of  either  party,  and  privateers,  freely  to  carry  whitherso- 
ever they  please  the  ships  and  goods  taken  from  their  enemies,  without  being  obliged  to  pay  any 
duty  to  the  officers  of  the  admiralty  or  any  other  judges;  nor  shall  such  prizes  be  arrested  or 
seized  when  they  come  to  and  enter  the  ports  of  either  party;  nor  shall  the  searchers  or  other  offi- 
cers of  those  .places  search  the  same,  or  make  examination  concerning  the  lawfulness  of  such 
prizes;  but  they  may  hoist  sail  at  any  time,  and  depart  and  carry  their  prizes  to  the  places 
expressed  in  their  commissions,  which  the  commanders  of  such  ships-ofwar  shall  be  obliged 
to  show;  on  the  contrary,  no  shelter  or  refuge  shall  be  given  in  their  ports  to  such  as  shall  have 
made  prize  of  the  subjects,  people,  or  property  of  either  of  the  parties;  but  if  such  shall  come  in, 
being  forced  by  stress  of  weather,  or  the  dangers  of  the  sea,  all  proper  means/shall  be  vigorously 
used,  that  they  go  out  and  retire  from  thence  as  soon  as  possible." 


rticle  of  the  same  Treaty. 

"  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  foreign  privateers,  not  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Most  Chris- 
tian King,  nor  citizens  of  the  said  United  States,  who  ha^e  commissions  from  any  other  Prince 
or  State  in  enmity  with  either  nation,  to  fit  their  ships  in  the  ports  of  either  the  one  or  the  other 
of  the  aforesaid  parties,  to  sell  what  they  have  taken,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatsoever  to  ex- 
change their  ships,  merchandizes,  or  any  other  lading;  neither  shall  they  be  allowed  even  to  pur- 


14 

chase  victuals,  except  such  as  shall  be  necessary  for  their  going  to  the  next  port  of  that  Prince  or 
State  from  which  they  have  commissions." 

l'2th  Article  of  the   Consular  Convention. 

"All  differences  and  suits  between  the  subjects  of  the  Most  Christian  King,  in  the  United  States, 
or  between  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  within  the  dominion  of  the  Most  Christian  King,  and 
particularly  all  disputes  relative  to  the  wanes  and  terms  of  engagement  of  the  crews  of  the  respec- 
tive vessels,  and  all  differences  of  whatever  nature  they  be  which  may  arise  between  the  privates 
of  the  said  crews,  or  between  any  of  them  and  their  captains,  or  between  the  captains  of  different 
vessels  of  their  nation,  shall  be  determined  by  the  respective  consuls  and  vice  consuls,  either  by  a 
reference  to  arbitrators  or  by  a  summary  judgment,  without  costs.  No  officer  ef  the  country, 
either  civil  or  military,  shall  interfere  therein,  or  take  'any  part  whatever  in  the  matter;  and  the 
appeals  from  the  said  consular  sentences  shall  be  carried  before  the  tribunals  of  France  or  of  the 
United  States,  to  whom  it  may  appertain  to  take  cognizance  thereof.'' 

By  the  llth  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  France,  by  guaranteeing  to  the  United  States 
4 '  their  liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence,  absolute  and  unlimited,  as  well  as  in  matters  of 
government  as  commerce,"  and  also  their  posses-ions,  together  with  the  additions  and  conquests 
that  their  confederation  might  obtain  during  the  war,  assumed  very  grave  obligations,  which  she 
fufilled  in  the  most  noble  and  generous  manner,  by  sending  a  powerful  fleet  on  to  our  coast,  and 
by  landing  a  large  army  on  our  shores,  which  zealously  and  effectually  co-operated  with  our  own 
forces,  and  enabled  us  to  assert  and  maintain  the  memorable  declaration  of  the  4th  of  July,  1776. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  guarantied  to  her  forever,  her  then  possessions  in  America,  as  well  as 
those  which  she  might  acquire  by  the  future  treaty  of  peace.  This  was  what  is  called  a  perpetual 
guaranty,  and  imposed  an  obligation  to  maintain  for  France,  her  possessions,  to  the  end  of 
time  ;  we  bound  ourselves  to  extend  to  her  in  any  future  war  in  which  she  might  be  engaged,  all 
such  succors  as  the  exigencies  of  the  case  might  require — exigencies  which  would  be  likely  to  be- 
come exceedingly  urgent,  as  her  enemy  would  certainly  be  Great  Britain,  who,  by  means  of  her 
maritime  strength,  would  be  quite  likely  to  assail  those  possessions  with  effect.  This  placed  us 
in  an  exceedingly  critical  condition,  and  so  mixrd  up  and  blended  the  United  States  with  the  re- 
lations and  affairs  of  France,  that  it  would  be  quite  difficult  to  escape  any  war  in  which  she  might 
be  involved  with  Great  Britain  These  hazards  would  have  been  greatly  enhanced  had  the  guar- 
ty  remained,  by  the  ascendancy  which  the  British  Navy  ultimately  obtained  on  the  seas.  At  the 
era  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  France  was  an  important  maritime  power,  and  very  nearly,  if  not 
quite  a  match  for  Great  Britain;  but  the  exploits  of  Nelson  and  of  other  able  leaders  of  the  British 
Navy,  soon  turned  the  scale  against  her,  and  swept  her  Hag  from  the  ocean,  and  put  the  French 
possessions  in  America  at  the  mercy  of  her  enemy.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  French  pos- 
sessions protected  by  our  guaranty,  were  considerable.  They  consisted  of  Cayenne,  (on  the  conti- 
nent,)  the  Islands  of  St.  Domingo,  Martinique,  Gaudaloupe,  St.  Lucia,  St.  Vincent,  Tobago,  De- 
seada,  and  Marie  Galante,  in  the  West  Indies,  and  of  the  Islands  of  St  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence.  These  possessions  were  mostly  captured  long  before  the  30th  of  September, 
1800;  were  restored,  if  I  mistake  not,  by  the  treaty  of  Amiens,  and  re-captured  by  Great  Britain  at 
early  periods  after  the  war  was  resumed.  Indeed  I  cannot  see  how  xve  could  have  fulfilled  the  guar- 
anty without  entering  ourselves  into  the  contest;  and  it  is  certain  we  should  have  been  obliged  to 
afford  from  time  to  time,  large  and  costly  succors,  which  would  have  been  alike  a  burden  on  our 
treasury  and  hazardous  to  our  peace.  And  what  is  more,  had  we  not  extricated  ourselves  by  the 
Convention  of  1800,  from  these  entanglements,  the  guaranty  would  have  remained  to  this  day, 
and  we  should  be  liable  to  be  called  on  now,  or  at  any  time  hereafter,  to  fufill  its  obligations. 

Besides,  by  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  we  made  our  con- 
nexion with  France  still  more  intimate  and  embarrassing.  We  bound  ourselves  to  pursue  a 
course  of  marked  partiality  in  her  favor,  in  the  event  of  her  being  engai>ed  in  any  future  war  with 
a  third  power.  It  is  true,  reciprocal  rights  or  privileges,  Were  secured  to  the  United  States;  but 
they  were  comparatively  of  little  importance,  as  both  the  position  and  interest  of  the  United  States, 
would  lead  them  to  the  cultivation  of  peaceful  relations  with  all  the  world.  There  was  every 
probability  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  that  Great  Britain  and  France  would 
be  the  parties  to  be  involved  in  future  wars,  while  the  United  States  would  occupy  the  position  of 
neutrals.  The  stipulations,  therefore,  of  the  17th  and  22d  articles,  though  nominally  mutual, 
were  mainly  in  favor  of  France,  and  were  of  inestimable  value  to  her.  By  these  articles  we 
agreed  that  France  should  have  an  exclusive  right  of  asylum  in  our  ports,  and  be  entitled  to  a  free 
admission  of  her  ships  of  war  and  privateers  with  their  prizes,  and  that  we  would  exclude  substan- 
tially thoiie  of  her  enemy.  The  advantage  which  this  would  afford  to  France  in  the  event  of  a 
war  with  Great  Britain,  can  be  seen  at  a  glance.  She  could  not  only  take  refuge  with  us  with 
her  armed  ships,  to  avoid  her  enemy,  or  to  escape  storms;  and  she  could  not  only  remain  ad  lib- 
itum, to  repair,  refit,  and  revictual,  but  she  had  a  right  to  convert  the  ports  along  our  extensive 
coast  into  so  many  stations,  from  which  she  could  sally  forth  with  her  arrnanent  to  defend  her 


15 

own  possessions,  or  to  assail  the  possessions  or  commerce  of  her  enemy.  In  short,  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  converted  our  Atlantic 
frontier,  in  case  of  a  war  between  France  and  Great  Britain,  substantially  into  a  French  coast,  and 
rendered  our  ports  nearly  as  useful  to  her  in  such  a  contest,  as  if  she  had  been  their  absolute 
owner. 

The  llth  article,  therefore,  of  the  first  named  treaty,  and  the  17th  and  22d  of  the 
last,  constituted  what  has  sometimes  been  called  "an  entangling  alliance,"  against  which 
Washington  so  emphatically  warned  the  country  in  his  farewell  address.  "  The  great  rule  of 
conduct  for  us"  (he  says)  "in  regard  to  foreign  nations  is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations, 
to  have  with  them  as  little  political  connexion  as  possible.  So  far  as  we  have  already  formed  en- 
gagements, let  them  be  fulfilled  with  perfect  good  faith.  Here  let  us  stop.  Europe  has  a  set  of 
primary  interests  which,  to  us,  have  none  or  a  very  remote  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  engaged 
in  frequent  controversies — the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence, 
therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves  by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissi- 
tudes of  her  politics,  in  the  ordinary  combinations  and  alliances  of  her  friendship  or  enmities." 

******"  Why,  by  interweaving  our  destinies  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe, 
entangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition,  rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or 
caprice  ?" 

The  history  of  the  country  proves  that  Washington  spoke  from  bitter  experience.  It  is  true, 
that  during  the  peace  which  ensued  after  the  close  of  our  Revolutionary  war,  (covering  a  period  of 
about  ten  years, )  we  experienced  no  particular  inconvenience  from  these  treaties;  but  soon  after 
the  war  of  the  French  Revolution  broke  out,  and  particularly  after  Great  Britain  became  a  party 
to  it,  they  were  found  to  be  complete  magazines  of  evil  to  the  country.  Very  soon  a  great  variety 
of  questions  arose  between  France  and  the  United  States  under  the  treaties  and  conventions  already 
referred  to.  Both  parties  complained  of  infractions  of  those  treaties,  and  of  serious  injuries.  The 
United  States,  of  the  spoliations  of  their  commerce,  contrary  both  to  the  treaties  and  the  laws  of 
nations,  and  France,  of  a  deprivation  of  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  her  by  the  17th  and 
22d  articles  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  Commerce,  and  the  12th  article  of  the  Consular  Convention. 
The  reclimations  on  the  one  side  and  the  other  became  exceedingly  animated — the  passions  of  the 
two  nations  were  aroused — the  discussions  (continued  through  several  years)  were  characterised 
by  profound  discontent  and  much  irritation,  and  frequently  became,  particularly  on  the  side  of 
France,  acrimonious,  and  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  were  kept  in  turmoil  and  confusion 
through  most  of  Washington's  administration,  and  until  near  the  close  of  that  ef  the  elder  Adams. 

I  should  trespass  far  too  much  on  the  time  and  attention  of  the  Senate  if  I  were  to  submit  an 
exposition  of  the  various  pretensions  advanced  by  France.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say,  in  gene- 
ral terms,  that  they  consisted  in  maintaining  that  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  her  by  the 
treaties,  or  some  of  them,  were  denied  to  her;  or  that  their  exercise  had  been,  in  some  degree, 
impaired  or  obstructed;  or  that  indulgencies  had  been  accorded  to  Great  Britain,  inconsistent  with 
their  true  intent  and  meaning.  It  is  unnecessary  now  to  consider  to  what  extent  France  had  just 
grounds  for  her  complaints,  though  I  am  free  to  admit  that  many  of  them,  if  not  most,  seem  to 
have  little  soliJ  foundation  to  rest  upon.  But  however  this  may  have  been,  it  is  certain  that  the 
disputes  between  the  two  Governments  began  to  subside  early  in  1795.  France  seems  at  that 
period  to  have  arrested  her  career  of  robbery  and  violence,  and  had  begun  to  manifest  a  disposition 
to  do  our  much  injured  citizens  something  like  justice — a  state  of  things  to  which  Washington 
referred,  with  evident  satisfaction,  in  his  message  of  February  28,  1795,  from  which  I  produce  an 
extract: 

"Our  Minister  near  the  French  Republic  has  urged  compensation  for  the  injuries  which  our 
commerce  sustained  from  captures  hy  French  cruisers,  from  the  non  fulfilment  of  the  contracts  of 
the  agents  of  that  Republic,  and  from  the  embargo  at  Bordeaux.  He  has  also  pressed  an  allow- 
ance for  the  money  voted  by  Congress  for  relieving  the  inhabitants  of  St.  Domingo.  //  affords 
me  the  highest  pleasure  to  inform,  Congress  that.  PERFECT  HARMONY  REIGXS  BETWEEN  THE 
TWO  REPUBLICS,  and  that  the^e  claims  are  in  a  train  of  being  discussed  with  candort  and  of 

being  AMICABLY   ADJUSTED   " 

But  all  the  hopes  of  Washington  were  blighted  by  the  promulgation  of  the  treaty  of  "AMITY, 
COMMERCE,  Axn  NAVIGATION*  "  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain^  usually  called  Jay's 
treaty,  dated  November  19,  1794,  but  not  ratified  until  October  28,  1795.  The  effect  of  that 
treaty  (which  had  been  kept  a  profound  secret)  was,  when  it  became  known  in  France  early  in 
1796,  to  blow  that  country  into  a  flame.  It  was  believed  to  manifest  a  strong  partiality  on  the 
part  of  our  Government  for  Great  Britain,  and  it  was  insisted  that,  in  place  of  remaining  the  ally 
of  France,  as  we  were  bound  to  do  by  the  treaties  of  our  Revolutionary  war,  we  had,  in  fact, 
made  ourselves  the  ally  of  her  most  powerful  enemy.  She  complained  particularly  of  the  18th, 
24th,  and  25th  articles  of  Mr.  Jay's  treaty.  By  the  18th  article  we  had  materially  enlarged  the 
list  of  contraband,  as  contained  in  the  24th  article  of  our  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with 
France,  and  had  accorded  to  Great  Britain  the  privilege  of  seizing  our  provision  ships  on  the  con- 


16 

dition  of  indemnifying  the  owners.  This  undoubtedly  gave  Great  Britain  a  great  advantage  over 
France  in  the  then  pending  war,  and  was  hardly  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  treaties  of  1798, 
and  with  the  obligations  of  gratitude  due  to  France,  on  account  of  the  sacrifices  made  and  services 
rendered  by  her,  in  asserting,  by  the  most  essential  aide,  "the  liberty,  sovereignty,  and  indepen- 
dence of  the  United  States,  as  well  in  matters  of  government  as  commerce."  I  shall  have  occasion 
directly  to  bring  the  24th  and  25th  articles  of  the  same  treaty  before  the  Senate  for  another  pur« 
pose,  and  therefore  I  will  not  dwell  on  them  here.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  soon  after  Mr.  Jay'f 
treaty  became  known  at  Paris,  France  resumed  her  course  of  aggression  on  the  United  States.  Her 
Government  issued  the  arretes  or  decrees  of  July  2d,  1796,  March  2d,  1797,  and  January  18th, 
1798,  ingeniously  contrived  to  confer  on  her  cruisers  an  unrestrained  license  to  plunder  Americai 
commerce,  of  which  they  availed  themselves  every  where,  and  to  the  greatest  extent  ruining  thou- 
sands of  our  citizens,  and  materially  impairing  our  national  prosperity.  To  arrest  :hese  enormi- 
ties the  United  States  sent  to  Paris  successively,  Minister  C.  C.  Pinkney,  and  Envoys  Marshall, 
Pinkney,and  Gerry,  but  France  would  not  deign  to  receive  either  the  one  or  the  other.  At  lengtl 
Congress  became  convinced  that  it  was  indispensable  to  take  a  stronger  and  much  more  significant 
position  in  opposition  to  France,  and  they  accordingly  parsed  the  act  of  the  7th  of  July,  1798, 
declaring  "the  treaties  heretofore  concluded  with  France  no  longer  obligatory  on  the  United 
States,"  and  resorted  to  certain  defensive  measures, of  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more 
particularly  hereafter. 

To  enable  us  to  understand  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  at  this  era,  it  is  necessary  to  recur 
to  the  24th  and  25th  articles  of  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  already  referred  to,  which  were  as  follows: 

"  AHT.  24.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  foreign  privateers,  (not  being  subjects  or  citizens  of 
either  of  the  said  parties)  who  have  commissions  from  any  other  Prince  or  State  in  enmity  with 
either  nation,  to  arm  their  ships  in  the  ports  of  either  of  the  said  parties,  nor  to  sell  what  they 
have  taken,  nor  in  any  other  manner  to  exchange  the  same;  nor  shall  they  be  allowed  to  purchase 
more  provisions  than  shall  be  necessary  for  their  going  to  the  nearest  port  of  that  Prince  or  State 
from  whom  they  obtoined  their  commissions." 

"  ART.  25.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  ships  of  war  and  privateers  belonging  to  the  said  parties 
respectively,  to  carry  whithersoever  they  please,  the  ships  and  goods  taken  from  their  enemies, 
without  being  obliged  to  pay  any  fee  to  the  officers  of  the  admiralty,  or  to  any  judges  what- 
ever; nor  shall  the  said  prizes  when  they  arrive  at  and  enter  the  ports  of  the  said  parties,  be  de- 
tained or  seized,  neither  shall  the  searchers  or  other  officers  of  those  places  visit  such  prizes,  (ex- 
cept for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  carrying  of  any  part  of  the  cargo  thereof  on  shore  in  any 
manner  contrary  to  the  established  laws  of  revenue,  navigation,  or  commerce,)  nor  shall  such  offi- 
cers take  cognizance  of  the  validity  of  such  prizes.,  but  they  shall  be  at  liberty  to  hoist  sail  and  de- 
part as  speedily  as  may  be,  and  carry  their  said  prizes  to  the  place  mentioned  in  their  commissions 
or  patents,  which  the  commanders  of  the  said  ships  of  war  or  privateers  shall  be  obliged  to  show. 
No  shelter  or  refuge  shall  be  given  in  their  ports  to  such  as  have  made  a  prize  upon  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  either  of  the  said  parties;  but  if  forced  by  stress  of  weather,  or  the  dangers  of  the 
sea,  to  enter  therein,  particular  care  shall  be  taken  to  hasten  their  departure,  and  to  cause  them  to 
retire  as  soon  as  possible.  Nothing  in  this  treaty  contained  shall,  however,  be  cunstrutd  or  ope- 
rate contrary  to  former  and  existing  public  trea'ies  wiih  other  Sovereigns  or  States.  But  the 
two  parties  agree,  that  while  they  continue  in  amity  neither  of  them  will  in  future  make  any 
treaty  that  shall  be  inconsistent  with  this  or  the  preceding  article. 

"Neither  of  the  said  parties  shall  permit  the  ships  or  goods  belonging  to  the  subjects  or  citizens 
of  the  other,  to  be  taken  within  cannon  shot  of  the  coast,  nor  in  any  bays,  ports,  or  rivers  of  their 
territories,  by  ships  of  war,  or  others  having  commission  from  any  Prince,  Republic,  or  State 
whatever;  but  in  case  it  should  happen,  the  party  whose  territorial  rights  shall  thus  have  been 
violated,  shall  use  his  utmost  endeavors  to  obtain  from  the  offending  party  full  and  ample  satisfac- 
tion for  the  vessel  or  vessels  so  taken,  whether  the  same  be  vessels  of  war  or  merchant  vessels." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  24;h  article  above  recited  is  almost  identical  in  words,  and  is  exactly  so 
in  effect,  with  the  22d  article  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  1778,  and  the  24th  article 
of  the  British  treaty  with  the  17th  article  of  the  last  named  French  treaty.  So  that  we  bound 
ourselves  to  accord  to  Great  Britain  the  same  exclusive  right  ot  asylum  for  her  ships  of  war  and 
privateers  with  their  respective  prizes,  which  we  had  granted  to  France  by  the  treaty  of  1778,  as 
some,  though  a  very  inadequate,  return  for  her  co-operation  and  assistance  in  the  fearful  struggle 
of  our  Revolutionary  war.  These  articles  would  doubtless  have  constitu'ed  an  infraction  of  the 
treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with  France,  bad  it  not  been  for  the  reservation  contained  in  the 
24th,  of  "former  and  existing  treaties  with  other  sovereigns  and  States."  But  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  annulment  of  7th  July,  1798,  removed  out  of  the  way  the  obstacles  created  in  favor  of 
France  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  let  Great  Britain  into  the  enjoyment,  by  virtue  of  Mr.  Jay's 
treaty,  of  the  same  exclusive  right  of  asylum  in  our  ports  which  had  been,  to  that  date,  the  right 
of  France,  and  convened  our  coast  into  a  British  coast  as  it  had  been  theretofore  a  French  coast. 
This  constituted  another  "  entangling  alliance,"  which  ultimately  became  so  distasteful  to  Wash- 


17 

ington — a  policy  which  has  been  entirely  eschewed  by  American  diplomatists  and  statesmen  from 
that  day  to  this.  No  doubt  Mr.  Jay's  treaty,  taken  in  connection  with  the  act  of  Congress  annul- 
ling the  French  treaties,  greatly  complicated  and  embarrassed  our  relations  with  France,  and 
rendered  an  adjustment  of  pending  controversies  almost  impossible.  Nor  can  it  be  matter  of  sur- 
prise, that  this  state  of  things  should  have  occasioned  the  utmost  discontent  and  irritation  in  the 
French  Government  and  people,  as  history  teaches  us  that  Mr.  Jay's  treaty,  and  the  proceedings 
of  our  Government  consequent  thereto,  were  received  with  great  disapprobation  by  a  large  body 
if  not  a  majority  of  our  citizens,  and  were  resisted  both  in  and  out  of  Congress  to  the  uttermost. 
The  appropriations  to  execute  the  British  treaty  were  carried  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
after  a  struggle  of  unexampled  vehemence  and  intensity,  by  a  majority  of  only  two,  and  that  solely, 
as  is  understood,  by  the  surpassing  eloquence  of  Fisher  Ames. 

I  have  thus  placed  the  Senate  in  a  position  to  appreciate  the  embarrassments  in  which  our  en- 
voys, Ellsworth,  Davie,  and  Murray,  found  themselves  involved  on  opening  negotiations  at  Paris 
in  the  spring  of  1800,  and  I  am  also  enabled  to  trace  their  progress  intelligibly  to  the  completion, 
of  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  September,  iSf  0,  showing  the  use  which  they  attempted  to  make 
in  various  forms  of  these  spoliation  claims  to  extinguish  the  national  claims  set  up  by  France  under 
the  treaties,  and  throwing  much  light  on  the  views,  purposes,  and  objects,  of  the  parties  in  the  Ar- 
rangement ultimately  effected  in  ratifying  the  same  convention. 

The  first  step  taken  by  the  Ministers  was,  to  come  to  an  explicit  understanding  that  indemni- 
ties should  be  made  by  each  nation  to  the  citizens  of  the  other.  There  were  some  indemnities 
due  from  the  United  States  to  the  citizens  of  France,  but  these  were  comparatively  insignificant. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  were  very  large  indemnities  due  from  France  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  comprehending  the  four  classes  of  cases  already  named,  and  an  admission  on  the  part  of 
France  of  an  obligation  to  make  them  stands  out  in  front  of  all  the  subsequent  proceedings.  This 
will  appear  from  extracts  from  the  correspondence  which  I  now  propose  to  submit  to  the  Senate. 

1.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  April  7th,  1800,  from  the  American  Envoy  to  the  French 
Minister: 

**  To  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice,  and  render  a  reconciliation  cordial  and  permanent,  they 
propose  an  arrangement,  such  as  shall  be  compatible  with  national  honor  and  existing  circumstan- 
ces, to  ascertain  and  discharge  the  equitable  claims  of  the  citizens  of  either  nation  upon  the  other, 
whether  founded  on  contract,  treaty,  or  the  law  of  nations." — Doc.  102,  p  581. 

2.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  19th  Germinal  year  8,  from  the  French  Minister  to  the  Ameri- 
can Envoy,  (in  reply:) 

"  The  Minister  of  the  French  Republic  *  »  *  thinks  that  the  first  object  of  the  negotiation 
ought  to  be  the  determination  of  the  regulations  and  the  steps  to  be  followed  for  the  estimation 
and  indemnification  of  injuries  for  which  either  nation  may  make  claim  for  itself,  or /or  any  of  its 
citizens. 

"  And  that  the  second  object  is  to  assure  the  execution  of  treaties  of  friendship  and  commerce 
made  between  the  two  nations,  and  the  accomplishment  of  the  views  of  reciprocal  advantage  which 
suggested  them."— Doc.  102,  p.  581. 

3.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  April  llth,  1800,  from  the   American  Envoy  to  the  French 
Minister,  (in  reply  to  the  last:) 

"The  undersigned  have  seen  with  pleasure  in  your  note,  which  they  had  the  honor  to  receive 
yesterday,  an  acquiescence  in  the  principle  of  compensating  equitable  claims  of  citizens  on  both 
sides,  though  you  have  proposed  to  include,  also,  claims  which  either  nation  might  make  for 
herself. 

"This  description  of  claims  was  omitted  in  the  proposition  of  the  undersigned,  not  from  the  ap- 
prehension of  an  unfavorable  balance,  but  because,  in  their  nature,  they  were  difficult  to  define 
and  limit;  because  their  discussion  might  be  unpleasant  and  dilatory;  and  because,  also,  to  insist 
on  pecuniary  compensation  for  themselves,  would  be  incompatible  with  that  magnanimity  which 
it  was  presumed  both  nations  would  prefer,  in  an  act  of  accommodation  so  auspicious  to  their 
future  prosperity.  If,  however,  after  considering  these  objections,  and  others  which  will  suggest 
themselves,  the  Ministers  of  the  French  Republic  shall  deem  it  necessary  tp  provide  pecuniary 
compensation  for  such  claims,  the  undersigned  will  be  ready  further  to  consider  the  question  at  a 
convenient  stage  of  the  negotiation,  which  they  apprehend  will  be  after  it  shall  be  seen  what  ar- 
rangement would  be  acceptable  for  the  claims  of  citizens. 

"  The  expectation  of  the  undersigned,  with  regard  to  commerce,  is  not  to  renew  or  amend  the 
former  treaty,  but  to  propose  a  new  one,  which  shall  have  fewer  difficulties  of  construction  and 
execution,  shall  more  extend  the  provisions  for  intercourse,  and  better  adapt  them  to  the  existing 
state  of  things;  and  they  trust,  when  the  existing  shall  have  sufficiently  progressed  to  take  up  this 
branch  of  it  more  particularly,  their  expectation  will  be  shown  to  be  reasonable." — Doc.  102,  p. 
582. 


, 


18 

4.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  23d  Germinal  year  8,  from  the  French  Ministers  to  the  Ameri- 
can Envoys,  in  reply  to  their  letter  of  April  1  Hh: 

"The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  French  Republic,  see  no  obstacle  to  prevent  the  Envoys 
Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  from  unfolding  the  considera- 
tions, at  which  they  have  stopped,  on  the  subject  of  the  arrangements  to  be  made  concerning  the 
individual  claims  of  one  nation  against  the  other. 

"These  claims  cannot  be  appreciated  on  one  side  or  the  other,  but,  by  the  discussion  of  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  dispositions  of  treaties,  the  national  claims  will  for  the 
most  part,  be  implicitly  appreciated  when  those  of  individuals  shall  be. 

"The  national  stipulations  vfill  be  but  the  ulterior  consequences  of  the  same  principles.'' — Doc. 
102,  p.  583. 

Thus,  an  admission  by  France  of  her  liability  to  make  full  indemnity  for  the  injuries  done  our 
citizens,  constituted  the  basis  on  which  the  negotiation  opened;  and  this  liability  she  did  not  con- 
trovert or  deny  during  the  subsequent  proceedings.  Here,  also,  we  find  conclusive  proof  of  the 
truth  or  correctness  of  the  allegation  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  his  letter  to  our  Minister  to  Spain,  of  the 
6th  of  February,  1804,  that  "the  claims  from  which  France  was  released,"  (by  the  Convention 
of  the  30th  of  September,  1800,)  "  were  admitted  by  France;"  and  much  other  proof  of  the  same 
character  could  be  adduced  from  the  same  correspondence. 

This  would  certainly  seem  to  be  very  satisfactory  progress;  but  our  Envoys  soon  discovered 
that  the  anticipations  of  the  French  Ministers,  that  "the  national  claim  would  for  the  most  part, 
be  implicitly  appreciated  when  those  of  individuals  should  be,"  must  be  realized,  or  in  other 
words,  that  it  was  quite  impossible  to  adjust  the  claims  of  our  citizens  on  France,  without  coming 
to  some  understanding  in  respect  to  the  obligations  of  the  United  States,  and  the  rights,  privileges, 
and  immunities  of  France  under  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  the  Convention  of  1788. 

In  the  first  instance,  our  Envoys  sought  indemnity  for  our  citizens,  and  a  new  commercial 
treaty;  but  France  insisted  on  the  validity  of  the  old  treaties,  and  maintained  that  if  she  made  re- 
paration for  any  supposed  infraction  of  them,  she  was  entitled  to  be  re-instated  in  her  former  posi- 
tion. "  The  French  think  it  hard,"  say  our  Envoys,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Pickering,  Secretary  of 
State,  under  date  of  May  17,  1800,  "to  indemnify  for  violating  engagements,  unless  they  can  be 
thereby  restored  to  the  benefit  of  them  "  "  The  French  Ministers,"  say  the  same  gentlemen  in 
their  journal,  under  date  of  May  23d,  1800,  "had  frequently  mentioned  in  conversation,  the  in- 
superable repugnance  of  their  Government  to  yield  its  claim  to  the  anteriority  assured  to  it  in  the 
treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  1778:  urging  the  equivalent  alleged  to  be  accorded  by  France  for 
this  stipulation  the  meritorious  ground  on  which  they  geneially  represented  the  treaty  stood;  de- 
nying strenuously  the  power  of  the  American  Government  to  annul  the  treaties  by  a  simple  legis- 
tive  act;  and  always  concluding  that  it  was  perfectly  incompatible  with  the  honor  and  dignity  of 
France  to  assent  to  the  extinction  of  a  right  in  favor  of  an  enemy,  and  much  more  so  to  appear  to 
acquiesce  in  the  establishment  of  that  right  in  favor  of  Great  Britain.  The  priority  with  respect 
to  the  r'ght  of  asylum  for  privateers  and  prizes,  was  the  only  point  in  the  old  treaty  on  which 
they  had  anxiously  insisted,  and  which  they  agreed,  could  not  be  as  well  provided  for  by  a  new 
stipulation." 

At  this  juncture  our  Envoys  began  to  experience  the  inconvenience  which  our  act  of  the  7th  of 
July,  1798,  annulling  the  treaties,  wasadcpied  to  produce.  The  effect  of  that  acton  the  relations 
of  France  and  the  United  States,  and  of  the  latter  and  Great  Britain,  they  explained  verbally  to 
the  French  Minister,  and  thus  repeated  in  their  letter  of  the  23d  July,  1800. — Doc.  1U2,  p.  162. 

"  As  to  the  proposition  of  placing  France,  with  respect  to  an  asylum  for  privateers  and  prizes, 
upon  the  footing  of  equality  with  Great  Britain: 

"  It  was  remarked  that  the  right  which  had  accrued  to  Great  Britain  in  that  respect  was  that  of 
an  asylum  for  her  own  privateers  and  prizes,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  enemies;  wherefore,  it  was 
physically  impossible  that  her  enemies  should  at  the  same  time  have  a  similar  right. 

"  With  regard  to  the  observation  that  by  the  terms  of  the  British  Treaty,  the  rights  of  France 
were  reserved,  and  therefore  the  rights  of  Great  Britain  existed  with  such  limitation  as  would  ad- 
mit of  both  nations  being  placed  on  a  footing  which  should  be  equal. 

"It  was  observed  by  the  Envoys  of  the  United  States  that  the  saving  in  the  British  treaty  was 
only  of  the  rights  of  France  resulting  from  her  then  existing  treaty;  and  that  that  treaty  having 
ceased  to  exist,  the  saving  necessarily  ceased  also,  and  the  rights  which  before  that  event  were 
only  contingent,  immediately  attached,  and  became  operative." 

To  this  the  French  Minister,  under  date  of  July  27,  1800,  replied  as  follows: — Doc.  102,  p.  614. 

"  Relative  to  the  first  object,  the  French  Ministers  are  obliged  to  repeat,  that  their  instructions 
being  grounded  on  the  perfect  acknowledgment  of  ancient  treaties,  it  is  impossible  to  subscribe  to 
the  annihilation  of  a  privilege  assured  by  the  treaty  of  1778,  to  the  privateers  of  each  of  the  two 
nations  in  the  ports  of  the  other,  and  above  all  to  the  establishment  of  this  privilege,  in  the  mu- 
tual relations  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 


19 

"  But,  convinced  that  the  true  interest  of  France  is  strict'y  connected  with  the  prosperity  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  United  States  with  their  perfect  independence;  con- 
vinced that  the  exclusive  right  granted  by  one  nation  to  the  privateers  of  another,  to  bring  their 
prizes  into  their  ports;  is  of  a  nature  to  compromit  its  tranquility,  and  hy  that  its  independence, 
either  localise  in  a  number  of  cases,  it  will  give  just  cause  of  complaint,  or  at  least  of  umbrage, 
to  the  Powers  upon  whom  such  prizes  are  made,  they  hasten  to  repeat,  at  the  same  time,  to  the 
American  Ministers,  that,  incase  of  a  reconciliation,  they  will  make  it  a  duty  to  insist  with  their 
Government,  upon  the  proposition  which  they  have  already  made,  to  abolish  all  exclusive  right 
of  entry  in  their  respective  ports,  for  the  privateers  of  the  two  nations  with  their  prizes,  and  to 
reduce  themselves,  for  them,  to  the  right  of  bringing  in  their  prize?  in  concurrence  with  the  most 
favored  nation.  They  beli  -ve  that  the  French  Government  would  be  honored  by  the  sacrifice  of 
a  privilege  which  can  be  prejudicial  to  its  ally;  but  that  it  would  be  disgraced  in  depriving  itself 
of  it,  to  the  advantage  of  its  enemy,  and  without  advantage  to  the  American  Independence." 

Indeed,  at  an  earlier  date,  (7th  of  July,)  our  Envoys  had  been  informed  by  the  French  Minis- 
ter, that  the  First  Consul  "would  never  consent  to  make  a  treaty  which  would  surrender  the 
exclusive  rights  of  France  in  effect  in  favor  of  an  enemy,  or  in  any  event  make  a  treaty  with  the 
United  States  which  would  not  place  France  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  Great  Britain." — Doc. 
102,  p.  619. 

This  led  to  a  succession  of  propositions  by  the  American  Envoys,  ingeniously  devised  with  a 
view  to  surmount  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  which  I  will  produce  here,  as  having  a  material 
Waring  on  the  question  before  us. 

Proposition  No.  1.,  submitted  by  the  American  Envoys,  July  15,  1800. 

"  Indemnities  to  be  ascertained  and  secured,  in  the  manner  proposed  in  our  project  of  a  treaty, 
but  not  to  be  paid  until  the  United  States  shall  have  offered  to  France  an  article,  stipulating  free 
admission,  in  the  ports  of  each,  for  the  privateers  and  prizes  of  the  other,  and  the  exclusion  of 
those  of  their  enemies:  nor  unless  the  article  be  offered  within  seven  yeais:  such  article  to  have 
the  same  effect  in  point  of  piiority,  as  a  similar  provision  had  in  the  treaty  of '78." — Doc.  102, 
p.  620. 

Proposition  3o.  2,  submitted  by  the  same,  August  20,  1800. 

1st.  Let  it  be  declared  that  the  former  treaties  are  renewed  and  confirmed,  and  shall  have  the 
sime  effect  as  if  no  misunderstanding  between  the  two  Powers  had  intervened,  except  so  far  as 
they  are  derogated  from  by  the  present  treaty. 

2d.  It  shall  he  optional  with  either  party  to  pay  to  the  other,  within  seven  years,  3,000,000  of 
irancs,  in  money,  or  securities  which  may  be  issued  for  indemnities,  and  thereby  to  reduce  the 
rights  of  the  other  as  to  privateers  and  prizes  to  those  of  the  most  favored  nation.  And  during 
the  said  term  allowed  for  option,  the  right  of  both  parties  shall  be  limited  by  the  line  of  the  most 
favored  nation. 

3d  The  mutual  guarantee  in  the  treaty  of  alliance  shall  be  so  specified  and  limited,  that  its  fu- 
ture obligation  shall  be,  on  the  part  of  France,  when  the  United  States  shall  be  attacked,  to  fur- 
nish and  deliver  at  her  own  ports,  military  stores  to  the  amount  of  1,000,000  of  francs,  and  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  when  the  French  possessions  in  America  in  any  future  war  shall  be 
attacked,  to  furnish  and  deliver  at  their  own  ports  a  like  amount  in  provisions. 

It  shall  moreover  be  optional  for  either  party  to  exonerate  itself  wholly  of  its  obligation,  by 
paying  to  the  other  within  seven  years  a  gross  sum  of  5,000,000  of  francs,  in  money,  or  such 
securities  as  may  be  issued  for  indemnities. 

4th.  The  articles  of  commerce  and  navigation,  except  the  17th  article  of  the  treaty,  shall  ad- 
mit of  modifications,  reserving  for  their  principle  the  rights  of  the  most  favored  nation,  where  it 
shall  not  be  otherwise  agreed,  and  be  limited  in  their  duration  to  twelve  years. 

5th.  There  shall  be  a  reciprocal  stipulation  for  indemnities,  and  these  indemnities  shall  be  limi- 
ted to  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  adjusted  agreeably  to  the  principles  and  manner  proposed  by 
the  American  Ministers  in  a  project  of  a  treaty  heretofore  delivered,  except  when  it  shall  be  other- 
wise agreed;  public  ship*  taken  on  either  side  shall  be  restored  or  paid  for. 

6th.  All  property  seized  by  either  party,  and  not  yet  definitively  condemned,  or  which  may  be 
seized  before  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  present  treaty,  shall  be  restored  on  reasonable, 
though  it  should  be  informal  proof  of  its  belonging  to  the  other,  except  contraband  goods  of  the 
United  States,  destined  to  an  enemy's  port.  This  provision  to  take  effect  from  the  signature  of 
the  treaty;  and  if  any  condemnation  should  take  place  contary  to  the  intent  of  this  stipulation 
before  knowledge  of  the  same  shall  be  obtained,  the  property  so  condemned  shall  be  paid  for 
without  delay. — Doc.  102,  p.  625. 

Proposition  No.  3,  submitted  by  the  same,  August  29,  1800. 

If  the  United  Spates  shall  at  any  time  within  seven  years  from  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications 
of  the  present  treaty,  offer  to  the  French  Republic  an  article  of  the  tenor  following,  viz: 


20 

"  It  is  agreed  that  the  United  States  shall  pay  to  the  French  Republic,  within  seven  years,  from 
the  day  of  exchanging  the  ratifications  of  the  treaty  of  ,  eight  millions  of  francs 

in  moiiey,  or  such  securities  as  have  been,  or  may  be  issued  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  for 
indemnities  under  the  said  treaty,  together  with  interest  hereafter  at  the  rate  of  per  centum, 

per  annum,  until  the  principal  shall  be  discharged.  And  that,  as  a  consideration  of  such  engage- 
ments, the  United  States  shall  forever  be  exonerated  of  the  obligation,  on  their  part,  to  furnish 
succors  or  aid  under  the  mutual  guarantee  of  the  1  Ith  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  of  the  6th 
of  February,  1778;  and  the  rights  of  the  French  Republic,  under  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of 
the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  of  the  same  date,  shall  be  forever  limited  to  such  as  the  most 
favored  nation  shall  in  these  respects  enjoy." 

The  French  Republic  will  accept  the  same;  or  if  the  French  Republic  shall  ai  any  time  within 
that  term,  offer  such  an  article,  the  United  States  will  accept  the  same.  And  in  either  case,  the 
article  so  offered  shall  become  part  of  the  present  treaty: 

"  To  such  a  stipulation,  in  connection  with  the  first,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  propositions  offered 
by  the  American  Envoys,  in  their  note  of  the  20th  of  the  present  month,  they  would  agree,  so 
great  is  their  desire  to  terminate  without  further  loss  the  present  negotiation." — Doc.  102,  p.  629. 

Proposition  No-  4,  submitted  by  the  same,  September  5,  1800. 

1st.  The  former  treaties  shall  be  renewed  and  confirmed. 

2d.  The  obligations  of  the  guarantee  shall  be  specified  and  limited,  as  in  the  first  paragraph 
of  their  3d  proposition  of  the  20th  of  August. 

3d.  There  shall  be  mutual  indemnities,  and  a  mutual  restoration  of  captured  property  not  yet 
definitively  condemned,  according  to  their  5th  and  6th  propositions  of  that  date. 

4th.  If,  at  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  the  United  States  shall  propose  a  mutual  relinquish- 
ment  of  indemnities,  the  French  Republic  will  a^ree  to  the  same;  and  in  such  case,  the  former 
treaties  shall  not  be  deemed  obligatory,  except  that  under  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of  that  of  com- 
merce, the  parties  shall  continue  forever  to  have  for  their  public  ships  of  war,  privateers,  and 
prizes,  such  privileges  in  the  ports  of  each  other,  as  the  most  favored  nation  shall  enjoy. — Doc. 
102,  p.  631. 

Proposition   No.  5,  submitted  by  the  same,  September  13,  1800. 

The  discussion  of  former  treaties,  and  of  indemnities,  being  for  the  present  closed,  it  must,  of 
course,  be  postponed  till  it  can  be  resumed  with  fewer  embarrassments. 

It  remains  only  to  consider  the  expediency  of  a  temporary  arrangement.  Should  such  an 
arrangement  comport  with  the  views  of  France,  the  following  principles  are  offered  as  the  basis 
of  it. 

1st.  The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  respective  parties,  not  being  able  at  present  to  agree 
respecting  the  former  treaties  and  indemnities,  the  parties  will,  in  due  and  convenient  time,  fur- 
ther treat  on  those  subjects;  and  until  they  shall  have  agreed  respecting  the  same,  the  said  treaties 
shall  have  no  operation.  In  the  mean  time, 

2d.  The  parties  shall  abstain  from  all  unfriendly  acts;  their  commercial  intercourse  shall  be 
free,  and  debts  shall  be  recoverable  in  the  same  manner  as  if  no  misunderstanding  had  intervened. 

3d.  Property  captured,  and  not  yet  definitively  condemned,  or  which  may  be  captured  before 
the  exchange  of  ratifications  shall  be  mutually  restored.  Proofs  of  ownership  to  be  specified  in 
the  convention. 

4th.  Some  provisional  regulations  shall  be  made  to  prevent  abuses  and  disputes,  that  may 
arise  out  of  future  cases  of  capture. — Doc.  102,  p.  635. 

The  propositions  were  successfully  rejected  by  the  French  Ministers  until  they  came  to  the 
last,  which,  after  considerable  hesitation,  was  accepted  and  constituted  the  basis  of  the  arrange- 
ments ultimately  made.  The  rejection,  I  suppose,  was  based  mainly  on  the  idea  that  they  would 
directly  or  indirectly  leave  Great  Britain  at  least  temporarily  in  possession  of  the  exclusive  rights 
which  had  become  vested  by  the  24th  and  25th  articles  of  the  treaty  of  19th  of  November,  1794, 
as  the  same  were  made  effective  by  the  act  of  the  7th  of  July,  1798,  annulling  the  treaties  of  1778. 

In  reply  to  the  propositions  submitted  by  our  Envoys,  the  French  Ministers  made  offers  on  the 
part  of  their  Government,  to  none  of  which  is  it  material  to  refer,  except  that  of  the  4th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1800,  which  was  as  follows: 

"  1.  We  shall  have  a  right  to  take  our  prizes  into  the  ports  of  America. 

"  2.  A  commissioner  shall  regulate  the  indemnities  which  either  of  the  two  nations  may  owe  to 
the  citizens  of  the  other. 

"  3.  The  indemnities  that  shall  be  due  by  France  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  shall  be 
paid  for  by  the  United  States;  and  in  return  for  which,  France  yields  the  exclusive  privilege  re- 


21 

sultinz  from  the  1 7th  and  22d  articles  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  and  from  the  rights  of  guar- 
antee of  the  1 1th  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance." — Doc.  102,  p.  630. 

It  is  believed  that  an  examination  of  these  proposition  will  sufficiently  elucidate  the  views  and 
object  of  the  parties  in  entering  into  the  arrangement  which  was  ultimately  effected,  and  will 
show  what  are  the  obligations  of  our  Government  under  that  arrangement. 

And  here  I  would  observe  that  proposition  No.  1  contains  the  following  elements: 

1.  Indemnities  to  be  ascertained. 

2.  Payment  to  be  postponed  for  a  period  not  exeeding  seven  years. 

3.  The  United  States  to  have  the  option  at  any  time  within  that  period,   either  to  accept  the 
indemnities  and  renew  the  treaties,  or  to  take  an  exoneration  from  the  latter  and  give  up  the  former. 

The  reason  why  seven  years  was  proposed  may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  at  the  end  of  that 
period  the  British  treaty  was  to  expire  by  its  own  limitation,  and  the  United  States  would  be  in  a 
situation  to  renew  their  former  engagements  with  France  without  a  breach  of  faith,  towards  Great 
Britain.  Now  suppose  a  treaty  to  have  been  made  on  this  basis,  would  not  the  United  States 
have  been  immediately  liable  to  the  claimants?  Might  they  not  have  said,  you  have  no  right  even 
to  postpone  our  claims  for  purposes  of  your  own.  But  at  any  rate,  if  the  United  States  had  elec- 
ted to  sacrifice  the  indemnities  rather  than  renew  the  treaties,  it  would  have  bern  a  clear  case  of 
liability.  They  could  then  have  urged  with  great  effect,  that  the  claims  had  been  liquidated,  that 
France  stood  ready  to  pay  them,  but  that  you  proposed  to  surrender  them  for  a  great  public  object, 
viz.,  exoneration  fram  obligations  of  an  exceedingly  embarrassing  and  injurious  character. 

The  second  proposition  contemplated  a  renewal  of  the  old  treaties,  and  the  ascertainment  and 
payment  of  the  indemnities,  with  an  option  on  the  United  Stateg,  within  seven  year?,  to  purchase 
out  the  exclusive  rights  of  France  for  the  consideration  named  ;  those  rights  to  be  limited  during 
the  period  named,  by  the  line  of  the  most  favored  nation. 

The  third  proposition  does  not  differ  essentially  from  the  second,  except  in  making  the  conside- 
ration for  both  the  llth  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  and  the  17th  and  22d  articles  of  the  treaty 
of  amity  and  commerce,  the  gross  sum  of  eight  millions  of  francs,  and  in  omitting  a  present  reduc- 
tion of  the  rights  of  France  to  those  of  the  most  favored  nation. 

But  by  f:r  the  most  interesting  of  these  propositions  is  the  fourth,  which  in  fact  comprises  the 
essential  elements  which  entered  into  the  final  arrangement.  Here  our  Envoys  suggest : 

1.  A  renewal  of  the  old  treaties. 

2.  The  guaranty  to  be  limited,  as  per  proposition  of  the  20th  of  August. 

3.  Indemnities  to  be  made,  and  property  not  definitively  condemned  to  be  restored. 

4.  The  United  States  to  have  an  option,  at  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  to  renounce  indemnities, 
and  '.ake  therefor  a  reduction  of  the  rights  of  France  to  those  of  the  most  fevered  nation. 

Now,  suppose  this  had  been  put  in  the  form  of  a  treaty,  and  that  the  United  States  had,  on  ex- 
change of  ratifications,  elected  to  give  up  the  indemnities  to  get  rid  of  the  exclusive  rights  of 
France  under  the  treaties,  could  there  have  been  any  doubt  as  to  their  liability?  And  yet  this  is 
precisely  what  the  parties  did  in  effect,  though  not  in  form  It  is  manifest  that  our  Envoys  had 
in  their  minds  the  idea  that  the  President  and  Senate  might,  when  they  came  to  revise  the  treaty, 
deem  (to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Livingston,)  the  indemnities  and  treaties  a?  of  "equivalent  value," 
and  might  be  disposed  to  bargain  away  the  former  to  purchase  an  exoneration  from  the  latter. 
No  doubt  this  same  fourth  proposition  suggested  to  the  Senate  the  course,  which  it  ultimately 
took,  anf  constituted  the  basis  of  its  action.AThe  suppression  of  the  second  article  was  in 
fact  a  renewal  to  France  of  this  same  proposing  which  she  accepted  contrary  to  her  first  decision, 
and  thus  France  was  released  from  these  spoliation  claims  for  "a  valuable  consideration," 
(vide  Mr.  Madison's  letter  to  Mr.  Finckney,  Doc.  102,  p.  795,)  "in  a  correspondent  release  of 
the  United  States"  from  the  claims  of  France  on  ihem.  It  is  apparent  that  France  deemed  it  im- 
possible for  us  thus  to  sacrifice  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  and  to  take  "  private  property  for  public 
use,"  without  making  them  a  "just  compensation,"  for  her  Ministers  in  their  counter  proposition 
of  the  4th  ot  September,  1800, proposed  to  release  her  claims  on  the  United  States,  in  considera- 
tion of  payment  by  them  of  the  indemnities  due  by  France  to  our  own  citizens.  We  were  to 
enter  into  an  express  covenant  to  pay  and  satisfy  these  claims,  and  France  being  thus  discharged 
from  these  individual  or  private  claims,  she  was  in  consideration  thereof^  to  hold  us  exonerated 
from  her  public  or  national  claims.  But  the  ultimate  intentions  of  the  parties  having  been  exe- 
cuted in  an  exceedingly  informal  or  irregular  way,  and  that  which  was  intended  in  fact,  not  hav- 
ing been  put  in  the  form  of  an  express  stipulation,  the  claimants  have  had  nothing  but  the  sub- 
stance of  the  matter  to  rely  on,  and  that,  I  hope,  will  be  deemed  by  this  enlightened  body  as 
binding  in  equity  and  good  conscience  as  any  formalities  whatsoever.  I  trust  that  I  have  thus 
redeemed  fully  the  assurance  which  I  gave  the  Senate,  that  I  would,  by  examining  the  negotia- 
tion which  terminated  in  the  Convention  of  1800,  deduce  the  correctness  of  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Madison,  (Doc.  102,  p.  795,)  to  the  effect  that  the  United  States  bartered  away  their  private  claims 
in  exchange  for  the  national  claims  of  France,  and  thus  obtained  for  them  a  full  and  a  valuable 
consideration. 


22 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  examine  the  objections  which  have  been  heretofore  urged  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  measure,  and  will  doubtless  be  reiterated  on  the  present  occasion.  They  are  set  forth 
indue  form  in  the  minority  report  submitted  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  from  the  Select  Committee,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  chairman.  As 
we  have  reason  to  expect  that  my  honorable  friend  will  address  us  before  this  bill  is  disposed  of,  I 
shall,  by  replying  to  the  objections  stated,  in  that  report,  give  a  sufficient  answer  to  any  remarks 
which  he  may  make,  as,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  can  be  little  more  than  an  amplification 
and  reiteration  of  the  report  itself.  I  observe,  then,  that  opposition  has  been,  and  will  continue 
to  be,  made  to  this  bill  on  the  ground  of 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THESE  CLAIMS. 
In  the  minority  report  this  objection  is  stated,  and  expressed  at  considerable  length  as  follows: 

'*  But  how  come  these  claims  here,  after  a  lapse  of  fifty  years,  and  how  can  we  ever  decide  the 
question  so  as  to  get  rid  of  it?  If  these  claims  upon  our  Government  were  ever  good,  is  it  possi- 
ble for  us  to  pay  them  so  as  to  do  justice  to  the  parties?  How  are  we  to  discriminate  between 
the  good  and  the  bad  claims,  so  as  to  secure  the  Government  against  mistakes  arid  frauds'*  After 
the  lapse  of  fifty  years,  most  of  the  evidence  is  gone  which  would  be  necessary  for  a  full  and  fair 
examination  of  their  justice.  Those  who  are  interested  preserve  most  of  what  is  to  be  found, 
as  time  rolls  on,  weaker  and  weaker  evidence  becomes  the  best  of  which  the  nature  of  the  case  is 
susceptible,  until  mere  presumptions  will  suffice  to  charge  the  Government,  and  scarce  any  pro- 
tection will  be  left  against  frauds  To  whom  are  we  to  pay  these  debts  if  they  be  due  1  There 
are  heirs,  creditors,  assignees.  To  whom  shall  the  money  be  paid,  and  how  are  their  several  re- 
lations to  the  claimant  to  be  ascertained.  The  chances  for  mistake  as  to  the  parties  entitled  are 
very  great  Shall  we  pay  to  the  administrator,  who  will  probably  be  the  agent  of  the  claim,  and 
leave  him  to  settle  the  rights  of  the  parties?  How  easy  would  it  be  for  him  to  retain  the  money 
on  a  claim,  established  perhaps  upon  imperfect  evidence,  and  keep  it  all  to  himself.  Between 
the  conflicting  claims  of  heirs,  assignees,  and  creditors,  the  chances  are  that  the  person  really  en- 
titled would  not  often  obtain  the  money.  There  certainly  ought  to  be  some  limitation  as  to  time, 
beyond  which  such  claims  should  not  be  presented.  It  is  easy  to  show,  upon  the  mere  calcula- 
tion of  chances,  that  any  claim  must  succeed  if  presented  year  after  year,  without  limitation  as 
to  time.  If  it  is  rejected  nine  hundred  and  ninety  nine  times,  the  claim  is  not  defeated;  but  if 
it  passes  on  the  thousandth  trial,  it  is  paid.  Where  governments  are  concerned,  it  is  especially 
important  to  establish  some  limitation  as  to  time.  There  are  few  or  none  who  feel  a  deep  inte- 
rest in  defending  the  Government  against  unjust  claims.  No  effort  is  made  to  preserve  evidence  to 
protect  it,  whilst  private  interest  induces  claimants  to  preserve  what  is  in  their  favor.  Evidence 
often  contradicted  at  first,  whilst  contemporaries  of  the  event  are  alive,  becomes  sufficient  merely 
because  that  which  contradicted  it  has  perished.  Not  only  is  it  impossible  to  defend  the  Govern- 
ment in  such  cases,  but  it  becomes  impracticable  to  do  real  justice  between  the  parties  entitled. 
The  true  relations  between  the  parties  and  their  several  titles  to  the  claim,  it  would  be  very  diffi- 
cult to  establish.  The  creditors,  who  are  often  the  persons  really  entitled,  would  generally  get 
nothing  in  such  cases.  The  evidence  of  their  claims  would  have  been  lost  Hopeless  originally 
as  to  the  claim,  and  equally  hopeless  as  to  the  ultimate  solvency  of  their  debtor,  in  most  cases 
the  evidences  of  their  title  would  be  lost.  Indeed,  the  debts  themselves  would  be  barred  by  the 
statutes  of  limitations  existing  in  the  States  Twenty  years  would  create  a  presumption  of  pay- 
ment of  a  bond;  other  contracts  would  be  barred  ML  less  time.  Even  a  judgment,  if  not  renewed, 
would  be  presumed  at  common  law  to  have  been^atisfied  after  a  period  of  twenty  years,  unless 
there  were  positive  evidence  to  control  such  a  presumption.  But  the  claim  against  Government 
is  good  forever,  and  the  heirs,  not  of  the  creditor,  who  was  really  entitled,  but  of  the  original 
claimant,  would  get  it." 

To  the  objections  thus  stated  I  answer: 

1.  There  would  be  some  propriety  in  assuming  this  ground,  if  this  were  the  first  appeal  made 
by  these  parties  to  the  justice  and  equity  of  Congress,  but  the  fact  is  far  otherwise.  The  claimants 
have  been  incessantly  petitioning  Congress  for  redress  for  nearly  half  a  century.  They  commenced 
at  the  very  first  session  after  the  ratification  of  the  Convention  of  the  30th  of  September,  <  800,  and 
have  continued  their  solicitations  to  this  day.  The  claimants  have  not  only  used  due  diligence,  but 
all  possible  diligence  ;  this  is  an  appeal  to  the  public  conscience — to  that  sense  of  justice  which 
must  be  presumed  to  be  ever  present  with  the  authorities  of  a  civilized  and  Christian  nation.  If 
the  honorable  Senator  could  prove  that  Congress  has  delayed  so  long  and  so  wantonly  that  the 
public  conscience  has  become  "seared  as  with  a  hot  iron,"  that  would  be  no  reason  why  justice 
should  not  probe  it  to  the  quick.  The  claimants  in  this  case  are  obliged  to  address  themselves  to 
the  party  in  interest;  the  party  which  is  to  pay  is  the  party  to  judge.  The  public  is  judge  in  its 
own  case;  and  when  this  many  headed  tribunal,  called  the  public,  has  procrastinated  for  near  half 
a  century,  all  the  while  refusing  to  act  definitively  on  the  subject,  can  it  turn  round  and  plead  the 


23 

statute  of  limitations — set  up  its  own  dereliction  of  duty  as  a  defence*  But  here  the  case  is  much 
stronger.  Whatever  action  there  has  been  vindicates  and  asserts  the  equity  of  these  demands. 
Committees  almost  without  number  declare  in  favor  of  their  validity:  the  Senate  frequently  asserts 
the  public  liability,  while  the  House  remains  mute;  but  at  the  end  of  forty  or  fifty  years  both  con- 
cur, and  then  the  Executive  dissents,  so  that  nothing  is  concluded.  Now  it  is  discovered  that 
the  bar  of  time  has  taken  full  effect.  Were  not  the  parties  entitled  to  a  yea  or  nay  within  a  reason- 
able time'  To  procrastinate  in  the  manner  Congress  has  done  in  this  case  is  a  great  wrong,  and 
the  public,  no  more  than  individuals,  can  take  advantage  of  its  own  wrong.  The  minority 
report  assumes  that  this  is  a  case  of  repudiated  claims — a  case  rejected  over  and  over  again  by 
Congress. 

"It  is  easy  to  show"  (says  the  Senator)  "upon  the  mere  calculation  of  chances,  that  ^ny 
claim  must  succeed,  if  presented  year  after  year,  without  limitation  as  to  time.  If  it  is  rejected 
nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  times  the  claim  is  not  defeated,  but  if  it  passes  on  the  thousandth 
trial,  it  is  paid." 

Very  sensible!  but  the  remarks  have  no  application  to  the  case  before  us.  The  truth  is,  the 
equities  of  the  case  have  been  strengthened  and  increased  by  the  delay.  An  equivalent  for 
the  indemnity  proposed  by  Mr.  Livingston  in  1830,  would  now  require  an  appropriation  of 
$11,300,000,"  or,  in  other  words,  less  than  $2,500,000  in  1830  would  have  been  better  for  the 
claimants  than  $5,000,000  now.  An  equivalent  for  the  55,000,000  voted  by  the  two  Houses  in 
1846,  would  at  this  time  be  $6,300,000.  Congress,  by  its  inattention  and  neglect,  has  not  only 
done  a  great  wrong  to  these  parties,  but  has  occasioned  no  inconsiderable  pecuniary  advantage  to 
the  public.  We  have  had  the  use  of  a  large  sum  of  money  for  many  years,  to  the  prejudice  of 
our  own  citizens,  and  now  we  are  told  that  the  cold  indifference  and  heartless  procrastination  of 
those  whose  duty  it  was  to  act,  blighting  the  hopes  of  thousands,  and  carrying  most  of  them  in 
penury  to  the  grave,  have  all  at  once  become  a  defence  under  the  head  of  hpse  of  time! 

2.  But  this  objection  can  have  no  application  to  the  general  equities  of  the  case.     These  can 
be  just  as  well  appreciated  now  as  they  could  have  been  at  the  day  and  hour  of  the  transactions 
out  of  wliich  they  arose.     They  depend  on  facts  and  considerations  which  are  matters  of  record. 
They  are  deduced  from  the  solemn  acts  of  the  two  Governments,  in  the  form  of  decrees,  laws,  and 
treaties,  and  are  illustrated  or  proved  by  an  extensive  diplomatic  correspondence,  accessible  to  us 
and  the  whole  country.     They  are  now  before  us  precisely  as  they  have  existed   in  the  public 
archives  for  a  half  century,  and  can  be  just  as  well  understood  and  judged  of  now  as  they  could 
have  been  by  any  of  our  predecessors,  recent  or  remote. 

3.  In  respect  to  any  difficulty  which  may  result  from  lapse  of  time,  in  appreciating  the  justice 
or  validity  of  particular  claims,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  they  are  all  to  be  referred  to  a  Board  of 
Commissioners,  who  will  judge  of  their  merits.     On  the  trial,  each  claimant  will  take  on  himself 
the  burden  of  proof,  and  if  he  has  lost  his  evidence,  in  whole  or  in  part,  so  that  he  cannot  make 
full  proof,  it  will  be  his  misfortune;  he  will  lose  his  claim.     It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  the 
Commissioners  will   allow  claims,  except  such  as  are  satisfactorily  proved.     The  question  is, 
whether  we  shall  pay  those  claims  which  can  be  proved.    If  this  class  do  not  amount  to  $5,000,000 
then  the  money  will  remain  in  the  treasury.     Besides,  this  objection  is  hardly   consistent  with 
another  taken  in  the  minority  report,  to  wit:  that  the  amount  due  will  much  exceed  the  sum  pro- 
vided by  this  bill,  and  that  a  balance  will  remain,  which  we  must  ultimately  pay.      But  it  is  be- 
lieved that  little  difficulty  will  be  experienced  ft  making  out  the  equities  of  the  cases  individually, 
for  the  reason  that  the  proofs  were  collected  in  the  day  and  time  of  these  transactions,  and  were 
put  into  the  hands  of  our  Government  in  conformity  with  the  suggestions  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  circu- 
lar of  1793,  and  they  are  now  to  be  found  in  the  archives  either  of  the  United  States  or  France. 

3.  But  the  minority  report  not  only  deals  with  the  general  equities  of  the  subject  and  with  the 
equities  of  the  claims  individually,  but  travels  off  into  the  equities  which  might  by  possibility  arise 
between  the  claimants  or  some  of  them  and  third  persons,  JSome  claimants  may  have  been  insol- 
vent; and  if  the  Government  had  responded  promptly  to  its  obligations,  the  money  would  have 
inured  to  the  benefit  of  the  creditors  of  such  claimant;  but  now  (runs  the  argument)  the  debts 
due  such  creditors,  may  be  barred  by  the  lapse  of  time,  and  that  bar  shall  protect  the  United  States — 
the  public  shall  have  the  benefit  of  this  remote  equity.  But,  the  Senator  in  his  anxiety  to  hunt 
down  these  claims,  should  at  least  spare  those  who  have  ever  met  their  engagements,  and  espe- 
cially creditors  of  the  original  claimants  who  hold  them,  either  for  payment  or  security.  This 
class  is  believed  to  be  large,  and  I  commend  their  case  to  the  particular  sympathy  of  my  honorable 
friend.  This  objection  is  too  far  fetched,  and  is  too  artificial,  to  be  worthy  of  further  notice. 

The  release  of  France  from  these  claims  was,  it  is  said,  without  consideration.  The  United 
States  obtained  no  equivalent  or  benefit,  direct,  or  collateral,  and  therefore  we  are  not  liable. 
France  had  no  right  to  a  continuance  or  renewal  of  treaties.  They  were  abrogated  for  just  cause, 
in  1798,  and  never  renewed,  and  therefore,  no  consideration  can  be  found  in  the  surrendry  of 
them  for  the  claims  now  before  the  Senate. 


24 

This  is  substantially  the  ground  taken  by  the  honorable  Senator  (Mr.  H.)  in  his  minority  re- 
port, and  which  he  will  doubtless  re-assume  on  the  present  occasion.  In  this,  of  course,  the  hon- 
orable Senator  will  be  obliged  to  place  himself  in  opposition  to  both  Livingston  and  Madison — 
the  former  declaring,  that  the  claims  on  the  one  hand  and  the  treaties  on  the  other,  "  were  con- 
sidered as  of  equivalent  value?"  and  the  latter,  that  the  release  of  the  one  was  "a  valuable  con- 
sideration "  fur  the  release  of  the  other.  He  will  also  find  himself  confronted  by  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  Murray,  one  of  the  Envoys  who  negotiated  the  Convention  of  1800,  and  was  commissioned 
to  exchange  the  ratifications  of  that  Convention  with  France  after  the  suppression  of  the  2d  arti- 
cle by  the  Senate.  It  is  well  known  that  the  French  Government  experienced  some  difficulty  in 
accepting  the  Convention  in  its  amended  form,  and  that  considerable  discussion  ensued  on  the  re- 
turn of  it  to  France.  While  the  question  was  pending,  Mr.  Murray,  under  date  cf  July  1st,  1801, 
wA)te  to  Mr.  Madison  as  follows: 

"To  you*  sir,  I  can  say,  I  wish  I  had  been  authorized  to  subscribe  to  a  joint  abandonment  of 
treaties  and  indemnities.  As  claims,  they  will  always  be  set  off  against  each  other  by  them;  and 
and  I  consider  the  cessation  of  their  claims  to  treaties,  as  valuable." — Doc.  102,  p.  675. 

But  notwithstanding  all  that  Madison,  Livingston,  and  Murray,  have  said,  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator will  have  it  that  such  cessation  was  not  valuable.  Here  it  becomes  proper  to  look  a  little 
more  narrowly  into  this  objection.  And  here  I  observe — 

1.  It  implies  an  admission  that  the  United  States  in  fact  discharged  the  claims,  and  insists 
that  such  discharge  was  without  any  sufficient  motive,  object,  or  consideration.     It  makes  the  act 
of  our  Government  a  wanton  act,  and  involves  a  grave  reproach  against  the  authorities  of  1800. 

2.  The  United  States  had  undertaken  and  was  bound  to  undertake  the  prosecution  of  these 
claims.     There  was  both  a  general  and  a  special  obligation;  the  former  resulted  from  the  relation 
of  the  State  to  its  citizens,  protection  being  due  from  the  one  in  return  for  the  allegiance  which 
is  incumbent  on  the  other,  and  the  latter  from  the  engagements  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  circular  in 
1793,  publicly  given  and  confidingly  accepted.     The  United  States  held  in  their  hands  an  im- 
portant trust,  which  it  was  their  duty  to  execute  with  all  possible  fidelity.     In  this  state  of  the 
case  we  discharge  and  exonerate  the  opposite  party,  as  is  now  said,   without  obtaining  anything 
either  for  ourselves  or  the  claimants.      We  place  them  in  such  a  position  that  they  can  have  no 
recourse  to  France.     How  can  it  be  said  that  they  could  not,  in  any  event,  have  obtained  redress 
at  her  hands?     Mr.  Livingston,  in  his  report  (p.  11,)   says:   "Nations  must  not  in  their  inter- 
course with  each  other,  be  supposed  capable  of  flagrant  injustice.     Such  a  principle  would  soon 
break  all  those  ties  by  which  modern  civilization  has  united  them.     If  the  French  Government  at 
that  period  had  denied  the  justice  of  those  claims,  and  asserted  a  right  to  make  the  depredations, 
it  would  not  have  lessened  the  justice  and  validity  of  the  claimant's  right  against  the  successors  in 
power  of  those  who  were  so  regardless  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and  the  faith  of  treaties  ;  and  at 
this  moment,  but  for  the  act  of  their  own  Government,   they  might  appeal  from  the  wrongs  in- 
flicted by  Republican  France  to  the  justice  and  magnanimity  of  its  monarchial  rulers."     Such  an 
appeal  was,  in  fact,   successfully  made  by  the  United  States  from  imperial  to  regal  France;  and 
we  obtained  in^  1831,  by  Mr.  Rives'  Convention,  indemnities  to  the  amount  of  25,000,000  of 
francs  at  the  hands  of  .the  latter,  for  the  lawless  depredations  of  the  former  under  the  celebrated 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees. 

The  language  of  that  Convention  is  broad  enough  to  comprehend  these  spoliation  claims. 
Some  of  them  were  presented  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners  sitting  under  that  Convention,  but 
they  decided  that  these  parties  were  not  entitled  to  participate  in  the  fund  to  be  distributed,  for  the 
reason  that  the  United  States  had  released  and  discharged  France  therefrom  by  the  Convention  of 
1800  They  were  not  claims  against  France  at  the  date  of  the  Convention  of  1831.  I  make 
this  statement  on  the  authority  of  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  State,  (Mr.  Webster.)  Under 
such  circumstances,  it  is  not  competent  for  the  United  States  to  say,  we  made  a  bad  bargain — we 
gave  up  the  claims  for  nothing.  They,  by  the  act  of  discharge,  placed  themselves  in  the  shoes  of 
France,  and  recourse  can  be  had  to  them  now  as  recourse  could  have  been  had  originally  to  France. 

3.  Whether  the  pretensions  of  France  were  or  were  not  strictly  valid  is  a  question  which  can- 
not now  be  made.     It  is  enough  to  say  she  seriously  advanced  such  pretentions,  and  that  these 
were  opposing  claims.     The  release  of  the  one,  under  such  circumstances,  was  a  sufficient  con- 
sideration for  the  release  of  the  others.     You  cannot  overhaul  and  re-examine  the  validity  of  such 
claims  to  break  up  a  compromise  or  settlement  on  the  principle  of  set-off^  you  cannot  thus  show 
a  want  of  consideration.     This  could  not  be  done,  as  between  the  United  States  and  France,  to 
hold  the  latter  liable  for  the  claims.     You  are  bound   by  the  adjustment,  (France  would  say,) 
and  who  could  deny  it.     May  not  these  claimants  say  the  same  thing  to  the  United  States,  with 
like  effect. 

4.  The  United  States  regarded  the  pretensions  of  France  to  be  of  a  character  to  constitute  a 
valuable  consideration,  for  our  Envoys  offered  to  purchase  or  buy  them  off,  for  no  less  than  eight 


25 

millions  of  francs.  We  deem  (said  the  United  States)  your  claims  under  the  treaties  invalid. 
You  think  otherwise;  therefore,  being:  anxious  for  an  adjustment,  we  will  pay  the  eight  millions 
for  them.  No!  responds  France.  Then  (says  the  United  States)  we  will  purchase  out  your 
pretensions  by  a  surrendry  of  these  spoliation  claims.  Will  you  take  the  one  in  exchange  for 
the  other?  Yes!  replies  France,  after  much  doubt  and  hesitation.  It  is  now  too  late  for  the 
United  States  to  claim  that  the  discharge  or  release  of  France  was  without  consideration.  Any 
great  public  object  or  benefit  is  a  sufficient  motive  or  consideration,  and  the  extrication  of  the 
country  from  the  toils  of  the  French  alliance,  even  though  the  misconduct  of  France  had  been 
such  as  to  justify  us  in  discarding  it,  constituted  such  an  object  or  benefit. 

5.  Nations  have  just  as  good  right  to  purchase  their  peace  as  individuals,  and  in  that  object 
alone  there  is  a  sufficient  consideration.     From  the  adjustment  of  1800,  our  Government  antici- 
pated great  advantages,  and  those  were  abundantly  realized.     This  will  appear  from  the  following 
extract  from  a  letter  dated  April  23,  1801,  from  Mr.   Lincoln,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr. 
Murray: 

"  The  beneficial  .effects  of  ratifying  the  Convention  with  France  is  extensively  felt  and  gene- 
rally acknowledged.  On  our  part  it  is  carried  into  execution.  Our  ships  of  war  are  called  into 
port.  Our  trade  is  passing  through  channels  which  have  been  obstructed,  and  spreading  on  seas 
which  have  been  infested.  Our  shipping  and  produce  are  in  quick  demand,  our  former  inter- 
course with  France  is  restored,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped,  you  have  already  obtained  her  confirmation 
of  the  treaty  which  has  in  part  produced  these  advantages." — Doc.  102,  p.  696. 

6.  In  this  case  the  United  States  secured  by  the  4th   and  5th  articles,  certain  collateral  advan- 
tages, which  in  themselves  constitute  a  snfficient  reason  or  motive  for  releasing  the  claims.     By 
the  4th  we  obtained  a  restoration  of  all  the  vessels  then  in  the  hands  of  France,  with  their  car- 
goes, not  definitively  condemned,  and  by  the  5th,  payment  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  supply 
and  embargo  cases  under  the  name  of  debts.     The  supply  cases  were,  in  fact,  mere  contract  cases; 
and  it  is  a  well  settled  principle  of  our  Government,  that  protection  is  not  due  to  such  cases.     The 
reason  is,  if  we  were  to  undertake  to  assert  the  rights  of  our  citizens  under  any  contract  or  contracts 
which  they  may  choose  to  make  with  foreign  ^t  ites,  it  would  be  in  their  power  to  involve  us  in 
a  war  at  any  time,  or,   at  least,  to  expose  us  to  the  danger  of  it.     Hence,  if  they  will  make  such 
contracts  they  do  so  at  their  own  hazard,  and  must  act  on  their  own  responsibility.     It  is  only 
claims  for  torts  or  lawless  violence  which  our  Government  will  prosecute.     It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  we  by  the  Convention  of  1800,  asserted  claims  to  which  our  protection  was  not  due,  by  sac- 
rificing another  class  of  claims  to  which  it  was  clearly  due! 

7.  But  I,  by  no  means,  admit  that  France  had  violated  both  the  treaties  of  1778.     Whatever 
there   was  exceptionable  in  her  course,  constituted   an  infraction  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce only.     The  treaty  of  alliance  she    had  fulfilled  to  the  letter.     She  stipulated  therein,  to 
make  common  cause  with  us  against  Great  Britain,  and  to  aid  us  with  her  good  offices,  counsels, 
and  powers,  so  as  to  maintain  effectually,  the  liberty,   sovereignty,    and  independence,  absolute 
and  unlimited,  of  the  United  States;  that  she  would  make  all  the  efforts  in  her  power,  against  the 
common  enemy  to  attain  the  end  proposed;  that  she  would  concur  in  all  our  enterprizes,  so  far  as 
circumstances  would  permit,  and  would  not  make  either  peace  or  truce  with  the  British  Crown, 
without  our  consent,  nor  lay  down  her  arms  until  the  independence  of  the  United  States  had  been 
formally  or  tacitly  assured  by  the  treaty  or  treaties  which  should  terminate  the  war.     All  this  she 
agreed  to  do  without  any  compensation  whatever,  and  with  what  a  noble  generosity  and  magna- 
nimity, and  with  what  immense  sacrifices  of  blood  and  treasure,  she  fulfilled  them,  let  the  history 
of  our  Revolution  tell.     There  is  not  the  slightest  pretence  for  saying  that  France  violated  the 
treaty  of  alliance.     The  act  of  annulment  (7   July,  '98, )  does  not  specify  any  particular  treaty. 
It  speaks  in  the  preamble,  in  general  terms,  of  "  treaties  repeatedly  violated"  by  France;  and  then 
enacts  that  "the  stipulation  of  the  treaties  and  of  the  Consular  Convention,     *     *     *     shall 
not,  henceforth,  be  regarded  as  legally  obligatory  on  the  Government  or  citizens  of  the  United 
States  "     It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  it  was  really  intended  to  comprise  the  treaty  of  alliance 
in  the  act  of  7th  July,  '98.     But  certain  it  is,  that  its  annulment,  if  intended,  can  be  regarded  as 
little  less  than  a  wanton  act  of  perfidy  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.     If  there  be  several 
treaties  between  the  same  parties,  a  violation  of  one  treaty  does  not  justify  the  annulment  of  the 
others.     Our  Envoys  advert  to  this  subject  in  their  letter  to  the  French  Minister,  of  July  23d 
1800.— Doc.  102,  p.  613. 

"  To  the  still  further  suggestion  that  the  laws  of  nations  admitted  of  a  disrolution  of  treaties  only 
by  mutual  consent  or  war.it  was  remarked  by  the  undersigned  that  their  conviction  was  clearly 
otherwise,  and  that  Vattel  in  particular,  the  best  approved  of  modern  writers,  not  only  held  that  a 
treaty  violation  by  one  party  might,  for  that  reason,  be  renounced  by  the  other  ;  but  that  where 
there  were  two  treaties  between  the  same  parties,  one  might  be  rendered  void  in  that  way,  and 
the  other  remain  in  force,  whereas  when  war  declares  it  dissolves  all  treateis  between  the  parties  at 
the  time." 


26 

From  these  considerations  it  must  be  apparent  that  France  had  at  the  execution  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1800,  very  serious  claims  against  the  United  States,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  1 1th  article 
of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  commonly  called  the  article  of  guaranty,  the  surrendry  of  which  con- 
stituted a  sufficient  consideration  or  benefit  to  our  country  for  the  release  of  these  spoliation  claims. 

8.  But  it  is  quite  apparent  that  these  claims  must  be  deemed  to  have  purchased  an  exonera- 
tion frorn  the  treaties,  irrespective  of  the  mutual  discharges  of  the  Convention  of  1800.  It  was 
the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  the  property  of  these  claimants,  that  constituted  the  infractions  of 
the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  which  our  Government  complained,  and  made  the  basis  of 
the  renunciation  of  the  7th  of  July,  1798.  In  this  way  the  United  States  derived  a  great  public 
benefit  from  the  wrongs  of  France — they  got  rid  of  that  exceedingly  embarrassing  and  inconve- 
nient treaty,  and  is  it  not  just  that  they  should  make  the  sufferers  some  remuneration?  If  the 
renunciation  of  both  the  treaties  and  the  convention  was  rightful,  then  the  sacrifice  of  the  proper- 
ty in  question  procured  our  exoneration  from  all,  or  rather  laid  the  foundation  for  such  exonera- 
tion. France  was  anxious  to  be  reinstated  on  the  principle  of  full  indemnity — this  was  frequently 
offered  by  them,  and  ever  rejected  by  us.  Even  after  the  convention  was  returned  to  Paris 
amended,  it  was  seriously  apprehended  that  she  would  discard  it,  so  that  she  might  make  indem- 
nity, and  reinstate  herself  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  and  immunities  of  the  treaties.  In  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Livingston  to  Mr.  Madison,  under  date  of  September  16, 1801,  (Doc.  102,  p.  700,) 
he  says : 

"  France  is  greatly  interested  in  our  guarantee  of  their  Islands,  particularly  since  the  changes 
that  have  taken  place  in  the  West  Indies,  and  those  which  they  may  have  still  reason  to  appre- 
hend there.  I  do  not  therefore  wonder  at  the  delay  of  the  ratification,  nor  shall  I  be  surprised  if 
she  consents  to  purchase  it  by  the  restoration  of  our  captured  vessels." 

But  the  apprehensions  of  Mr.  Livingston  were  not  realized.  France  ratified  the  convention  as 
amended,  declaring  that  the  retrenchment  of  the  2d  article  should  operate  as  a  release  or  renun- 
ciation of  the  respective  claims  of  the  parties.  So  that  we,  in  the  first  place,  took  benefit  of  the 
wrongs  of  France,  to  throw  off  the  treaties  and  convention,  and  then  discharged  France  from  all 
claim  on  account  of  those  wrongs  in  consideration  of  her  releasing  us  from  any  possible  right 
which  she  might  have  to  the  treaties  and  convention.  Our  discharge  of  France  sanctified  her 
acts,  and  effectually  appropriated  private  property  to  a  great  public  object.  On  every  ground,  the 
objection  now  before  us  must  fail,  and  the  obligation  to  indemnify  the  sufferer,  at  least  to  some 
extent,  must  be  deemed  complete,  unless  some  other  reason  can  be  assigned  than  of  want  of  con- 
sideration for  the  release  of  France.* 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  became  belligerent,  or  that  the  war  in 
part,  existed,  and  that  the  United  States,  having  closed  it  without  obtaining  satisfaction,  is  not 
now  liable  to  the  claimants.  It  may  be  admitted,  that  if  we  had  in  reality  declared  war  against 
France,  to  obtain  redress,  had  prosecuted  it  with  proper  vigor,  and  had  failed  to  obtain  justice  for 
the  claimants,  our  Government  could  not  be  justly  held  liable.  No  nation  is  bound  to  prosecute 
a  war  for  an  indefinite  or  unreasonable  period,  to  redress  the  wrongs  of  its  citizens.  But  in  case 
of  a  war  dejnre  et  de  facto,  if  the  Government  use  or  appropriate  claims  such  as  these,  to  secure 
to  itself  or  other  citizens,  collateral  advantages  in  a  treaty  of  peace,  then  it  is  bound  to  make  in- 
demnity 

But  was  there  war?  If  so,  it  was  a  maritime  war,  so  that  the  belligerents  would  have  been 
found  engaged  in  capturing  each  other's  ships,  both  public  and  private,  armed  and  unarmed,  as 
opportunity  presented.  It  is  well  known  that  the  United  States  did  not  authorize  their  cruisers  to 
capture  the  merchant  vessels  ef  France.  No  such  right  or  authority  was  conferred  on  American 
privateers;  nor  were  such  captures  made  in  fact.  This  would  constitute  a  singular  maritime  war. 

It  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  United  States  either  declared  war  against  France,  or  recognized 
a  war  as  "existing  with  that  power,  and  the  same  remark  is  true  of  France.  But  it  will  be  said  that 
certain  acis  of  force  were  authorized  by  our  Government,  which  were  tantamount  to  war.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  insist  that  these  measures  were  strictly  defensive  in  their  character — did  not  au- 
thorize indiscriminate  hostilities — stopped  far  short  of  war — and  that  neither  paity  supposed  war 
existed,  and  never  thought  of  making,  and  did  not  make  a  treaty  of  peace.  I  will  in  the  first 
place,  advert  to  the  measures  authorized  by  Congress.  Were  they  defensive  or  otherwise?  They 
were  as  follows: 

1.  An  act  more  effectually  to  protect  the  commerce  and  coast  of  the  United  States,  approved 
May  28,  1798,  vide  Laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  3,  p.  54. 

This  act  only  authorized  the  public  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States  to  seize,  take,  and  bring 
into  our  ports,  the  armed  vessels  of  Fiance  which  had  committed,  or  which  were  found  hovering 

*  NOTK.  I  am  indebted  to  one  of  my  colleagues  of  the  Select  Committee,  (Hon.  Mr.  BRADBURY,)  for  the  leading 
idea  here  developed.  He  was  prepared  to  address  the  Senate  in  support  of  the  bill,  and  no  doubt  would  Jiavo  done  so 
to  good  purpose,  had  he  not  waived  the  privileges  of  the  floor  on  account  of  the  evident  desire  of  the  body  to  take  the 
question. 


27 

on  our  coast,  for  the  purpose  of  committing  depredations  on  the  vessels  of  our  citizens,  or  to  retake 
any  American  ship  or  vessel  which  had  been  captured  by  any  such  armed  vessel. 

2.  An  act  to  suspend  commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  France  and  the 
dependencies  thereof,  approved  June  13,  17'J8,  vide  Laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  3,  p.  59. 

The  object  of  this  act  and  many  of  its  details,  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  an  ex- 
isting war  between  the  two  countries.  Could  our  Congress  be  so  absurd  as  to  suspend  commer- 
cial intercourse  in  the  midst  of  a  flagrant  war? 

3.  An  act  to  authorize  the  defence  of  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States,  against  French 
depredations  approved  June  25,  1798,  vide  Laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  3,  p.  68. 

The  scope  and  object  of  this  act  is  sufficiently  explained  by  its  title. 

4.  An  act  10  declare  the  treaties  heretofore  concluded  with  France,  no  longer  obligatory  on 
the  United  States,  approved  July  7,  1793,  vide  Laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  3,  p.  76. 

Why  declare  treaties  no  longer  binding,  if  war  existed,  which  every  one  knows,  dissolves  or 
annuls  all  treaties.  This  is  a  plain  and  familiar  axiom  of  the  laws  of  nations. 

5.  An  act  further  to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  approved  July  9,  1798,  vide  Law 
of  the  United  States,  vol.  3,  p.  76. 

This  act  only  authorizes  the  capture  of  French  armed  vessels  by  the  public  and  private  armed 
vessels  of  the  United  States,  and  the  recapture  of  American  vessels  which  had  been  or  should  be 
taken  by  the  French  In  all  other  respects,  the  French  flag  could  traverse  the  ocean  with  impu. 
nity.  JNTo  reprisals  were  authorized.  French  merchant  vessels  were  not  to  be  assailed  any  where 

6.  An  act  further  to  suspend  the  commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  France, 
and  the  dependencies  thereof.     (Approved  Feb.  9,  1799,)  vide  Laws  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  3,  p.  118 

This  is  an  extension  of  the  act  of  June  13,  1798,  then  about  to  expire  by  its  own  limitation, 
and  excludes  war  down  to  its  date. 

7.  An  act  giving  eventual  authority  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  augment  the  army. 
(Approved  March  2,  1799,  vide  Laws  of  the  U.  S  ,  vol.  3,  p.  261.) 

This  act  authorizes  the  President,  "in  case  war  xhall  break  out  between  the  United  States  and 
a  foreign  European  power,  or  in  case  imminent  danger  of  invasion  of  territory  by  any  such  power 
shall,  in  hi?  opinion,  be  discovered  to  exist,"  to  organize  and  cause  to  be  raised  a  certain  force 
therein  specified.  Every  one  knows  that  the  "European  Power"  referred  to  was  France.  All 
causes  of  difference  between  us  and  Great  Britain  had  been  settled  by  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  in  1794, 
and  the  controversy  with  France  was,  at  the  date  of  this  act,  at  its  height.  Here,  then,  we  have 
a  legislative  recognition  of  the  fact  that  no  rupture  had  occurred  between  the  two  countries  up  to 
the  2d  of  March,  1799. 

8.  An  act  to  suspend  in  part  an  act  entitled  "an  act  to  augment  the  army  of  the  United  Statesi 
and  for  other  purposes." 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  nf  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  Congress  azssmbfa/,  That  all  further  enlistments  under  the  2d  section  of  an  act  entitled  'an 
act  to  augment  the  army  of  the  United  States,  and  for  other  purposes,'  shall  be  suspended  until 
the  further  order  of  Congress,  unless,  in  the  recess  of  Congress,  and  during  the  continuance  of 
the  existing  differences  between  the  United  States  and  the  French  Republic,  war  sh  ill  break  out 
betwten  the  United  States  and  the  French  Republic,  or  imminent  danger  of  invasion  of  their  ter- 
ritory by  the  said  Republic,  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  be  dis- 
covered to  exist  "  (Approved  Feb.  20,  1800,  vide  Laws  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  3,  p.  3U5.) 

It  requires  some  degree  of  intrepidity  for  any  man  to  claim  that  war  existed  at  the  date  of  this 
act,  in  face  of  the  explicit  language  therein  contained  to  the  contrary,  and  yet  it  did  exist  then, 
if  at  all,  and  had  been  raging  more  than  eighieen  months!  The  collisions  which  occurred  be- 
tween the  armed  vessels  of  the  two  Republics,  took  place  before  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  20th 
of  Februarv,  but  such  collisions  were  not  regarded  as  war  by  either  Government.  They  resulted 
from  measures  authorized  by  Congress,  on  the  principle  of  defence  merely,  and  the  United  States 
did  not  intend  to  transgress  that  line,  and  France  well  knew  that  this  was  the  American  policy. 

Such  were  the  meisures  adopted  by  the  United  States.  In  the  meantime  what  did  France  do? 
I  have  already  said  she  did  not  declare  war,  nor  did  she  ever  authorize  the  capture  of  the  armed 
vessels  of  the  United  States.  On  the  contrary,  the  moment  we  assumed  a  firm  and  resolute  atti- 
tude she  changed  her  policy,  and  began  sedulously  to  cultivate  peaceful  relations  with  the  United 
States. 

On  the  31st  of  July,  1798,  the  French  Directory  issued  a  decree,  in  which,  after  reciting 
that  "information  recently  received  from  the  French  Colonies  and  the  Continent  of  America, 


28 

leave  no  room  to  doubt  that  French  cruisers,  or  such  as  call  themselves  French,  have  infringed 
the  laws  of  (he  Republic  relative  to  cruising  and  prizes-  that  foreigners  and  pirates  have  abused 
the  latitude  allowed,  at  Cayenne,  and  in  the  West  Indian  Islands,  to  vessels  fitted  out  for  cruising 
or  for  war  and  commerce,  in  order  to  cover  with  the  French  flag  their  extortions,  and  the  violation 
of  the  respect  due  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  to  the  persons  and  property  of  allies  and  neutrals," 
they  proceed  to  lay  down  and  establish  a  variety  of  rules  and  regulations  to  put  down  the  atroci- 
ties, of  which  we  had  so  long  complained. — Doc.  10'2,  p.  379.  That  this  decree  was  intended 
for  the  relief  of  American  commerce,  \%e  know  from  a  letter  addressed  by  M.  Talleyrand  to  Mr. 
Gerry,  dated  August  3d,  1798,  in  which  he  communicated  the  foregoing  decree  to  that  gentle- 
man, and  then  added,  "it  depends  on  the  United  States,  in  particular,  to  cause  every  misunder- 
standing to  disappear  between  them  and  the  French  Republic." 

On  the  6th  of  the  same  month,  M.  Talleyrand  wrote  to  Mr.  Shipwiuth,  our  Consul  General 
at  Paris,  inviting  attention  to  the  same  decree,  and  then  observes,  "You  will  see,  bejond  a  doubt, 
in  the  intentions  and  acts  of  the  Directory,  a  motive  to  effect  the  commercial  security  of  jour 
fellow-citizens  as  long  as  it  shall  be  kept  within  just  limits."  So  that  clearly  the  object  of  the 
decree  was  to  conciliate  the  United  States,  and  that,  too,  after  we  had  adopted  several  of  the  very 
measures  which  it  is  now  said  placed  us  at  war  with  France. 

The  next  step  taken  by  the  French  Government  was,  to  direct  the  discharge  of  the  crews  of 
American  embargoed  vessels,  by  a  circular  addressed  by  the  Minister  of  Marine,  to  the  agents  of 
Marine,  at  the  ports  of  the  Republic,  dated  August  13,  1798.  In  this  circular  I  find  the  following: 

"I  remark,  citizen,  by  the  correspondence  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Governors  of  the  ports, 
that  the  embargo  laid  recently  upon  American  vessels,  has  produced  the  detention  of  their  crews. 
The  intentions  of  Government  have  been  ill  understood,  by  the  adoption  of  a  measure,  that,  in 
the  first  place,  compromits  the  safety  of  those  vessels,  and  in  the  second,  seems  to  place  us  in  a 
hostile  attitude  against  the  United  States;  when,  on  the  contrary,  the  acts  of  Government  evince 
the  desire  to  maintain  a  good  understanding  between  the  two  Republics." — Doc.  102,  p.  548. 

So  that  France  had  no  idea  of  being  involved  in  a  war  with  the  United  States  at  that  date. 

On  the  18th  of  the  same  month,  the  same  Minister  addressed  a  circular  to  the  principal  onicers, 
civil  and  military,  of  the  ports,  conceived  in  the  same  kind  and  friendly  spirit;  in  vvhic'  tis  snys: 

"  Our  political  situation,  with  regard  to  the  United  States,  citizen,  not  having  n  dergone,  up 
to  this  day,  any  change  that  might  have  an  influence  upon  the  attentions  due  to  r<-utral  nations, 
I  think  it  unnecessary  to  bring  to  your  recollection,  that  no  attempt  should  be  ,,ade  against  the 
security  and  liberty  of  persons,  composing  the  (Etats  Majors)  officers  and  ('"'  juipages)  crews  of 
every  American  vessel,  that  is  found  regular,  and  that  the  same  course  shoul '  oe  observed  towards 
all  passengers  and  other  citizens  of  the  United  States,  furnished  with  pas?i-nrts  or  necessary  pro- 
tections. You  will  use  the  strictest  vigilance,  that  the  intentions  of  Gov  /nment,  in  this  respect, 
be  followed  by  all  persons  under  your  command,  and  if  any  of  them  ha-e  failed  in  the  due  execu- 
tion thereof,  you  will  do  justice  to  the  demand  which  will  be  addre."  cd  to  you,  as  soon  as  you 
shall  have  ascertained  their  validity." — Doc.  102,  p.  548. 

On  the  20th,  M.  Talleyrand  communicated  these  circulars  to  our  consul  gfneral,  and  remarked, 
that  "  their  contents  will  prove  to  you  the  intention  of  the  Govern. nent  to  remedy  the  abuses  com- 
mitted against  its  intentions." — Doc.  102,  p.  549. 

But  a  stop  much  more  important  was  taken  by  France  on  iie  16th  of  August,  when  the  Di- 
rectory, by  a  decree,  raised  the  embargo  which  had  been  laid  on  American  vtssels.  This  decree 
expresses  so  fully  what  was  the  real  policy  France  had  d«-  ided  to  pursue  towards  the  United 
States,  that  I  deem  it  material  to  produce  it  entire.  It  was  as  follows: 

*'The  Executive  Directory  considering,  that  nothwithst  nding  the  hostile  manifestations  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  which  have  occasioned  a  momentary  embargo  upon  their  ves- 
sels, it  must  be  believed,  that,  unless  abandoned  to  the  pmsions  of  the  British  cabinet,  that  Gov- 
ernment, faithful  to  the  interests  of  the  American  natio  ,  will  take  measures  conformable  to  the 
pacific  dispositions  of  the  French  Republic,  after  it  shall  receive  a  confirmation  of  them 

"And  wishing  to  pursue  the  friendly  and  fraternal  habits  of  France  towards  a  People  whose 
liberty  it  defended,  decrees  as  follows- 

ART.  1.     "The  embargo  laid  upon  American  vessels  shall  be  immediately  raised. 

Anr.  2.  "The  Minister  of  Marine  and  of  the  C-.j.onies  is  charged  with  the  execution  of  the 
present  decree,  which  shall  not  be  printed." 

France  was  then  pursuing  a  pacific  line  of  policv  towards  the  United  States,  on  the  16th  of 
August,  1798.  The  war  existed  at  that  very  time,  according  to  the  authority  of  those  who  want 
to  get  rid  of  these  spoiliation  claims. 

But  more  conclusive  evidence  on  this  point  wiU  be  found  in  a  truly  able  and  highly  interesting 
letter  from  M.  Talleyrand  to  the  Minister  of  Jusue,  dated  as  late  as  the  13th  of  December,  1799^ 


29 

in  which  he  discussed  at  considerable  length  the  validity  of  the  celebrated  decree  of  the  roled'equip- 
age,  wlvkh  had  proved  so  destructive  to  American  commerce,  and  indicates  a  strong  opinion 
against  it  In  speaking  of  the  decree,  he  inquires,  'Jis  it  not  a  manifest  intention  to  find  infring- 
ers  every  where ?"  and  then  adds: 

"  A  rolt  d'eqitipave  on  hoard  has  been  demanded  of  the  Americans:  where  was  that  obligation 
taken  ?  In  the  regulations:  then  they  must  have  opened  those  regulations  and  conformed  them- 
selves to  them,  in  order  to  escape  the  confiscation.  So  they  did,  and  now- a  days  they  would  be 
condemned  for  so  having  done. 

"  They  would  be  condemned  for  not  having  done  the  thing  according  to  formalities,  whose 
obligat  on  appeared  dubious,  and  vrhich  afterwards  was  confessed  not  to  exist:" 

He  concludes  his  letter  with  the  following  significant  remarks: 

"This  is,  dear  colleague,  the  manner  in  which  I  consider  the  question.  I  shall  add,  that  it  is 
not  in  the  moment  when  the  Directory  is  to  gather,  the  fruits  of  the  conciliatory  measures  they 
have  taken  to  prevent  hostile  combinations  between  England  and  America,  it  would  be  politic  to 
support  the  new  difficulty  raised  up  by  our  privateers,  which  if  consecrated  (and  it  could  not  be 
but  by  authority,  and  by  no  means  after  the  spirit  nor  the  meaning  of  the  laws  or  treaties)  would 
occasion  numbers  of  new  confiscations,  and  revive  in  the  United  States  the  general  discontent, 
hitherto  the  greatest,  and  I  could  say,  the  only  force  of  the  American  Government  against  us." — 
Doc.  lUi,  p.  553-4-5. 

Here  \ve  have  a  perfect  key  to  the  entire  policy  of  France  towards  the  United  States,  while  the 
defensive  measures  authorized  by  Congress  were  in  full  operation.  It  will  be  recollected,  that  the 
letter  was  written  more  than  eighteen  months  after  the  annulment  of  the  treaties,  and  alter  Con- 
gress had  authorized  the  public  vessels  of  the  United  States  to  attack  and  capture  the  armed  ves- 
sels of  France.  During  that  period,  says  M.  Talleyrand,  in  effect,  we  have  been  pursuing  a 
conciliatory  policy  towards  the  United  States  "  to  prevent  hostile  combinations"  between  them 
and  England;  and  then  he  adds,  it  is  not  at  the  moment  when  the  Directory  are  expecting  to  reap 
the  fruits  of  that  policy  that  it  would  be  politic  to  support  the  pretensions  of  our  privateers  under 
the  decree  of  the  role  d'equipage,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  laws  and  treaties,  which  would  oc- 
casion numbers  of  new  confiscations  and  revive  in  the  United  States  a  general  discontent.  Does 
this  look  like  war,  or  anything  approaching  it? 

In  the  letter  of  the  French  .Ministers  to  the  American  Envoys,  Ellsworth,  Davie,  and  Murray, 
under  date  of  August  i  I,  1800,  I  find  the  following  passage  pertinent  to  the  question  I  arn  now 
discussing: 

"In  the  first  place,  they  will  insist  upon  the  principle  already  laid  down  in  their  former  note, 
viz:  that  the  treaties  which  united  France  and  the  United  States  are  not  broken:  that  even  war 
could  not  have  broken  them:  but  that  the  state  of  misunderstanding.  Which  has  existed  for  some 
time  between  France  and  the  United  States,  by  the  act  of  some  agents,  rather  than  by  the  will 
of  the  respective  Governments,  has  not  been  a  state  of  war,  at  least  on  the  side  of  France." — 
Doc.  10-2,  p.  616. 

In  a  subsequent  part  of  the  same  letter  they  use  language  in  some  degree  conflicting  with  this, 
to  which  the  minority  report  refers,  to  prove  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  French  Government,  war 
did  exist;  I  understand  those  leraarks  to  apply  only  to  a  hypothetical  case;  but  if  otherwise,  the 
two  parts  are  utterly  inconsistent.  The  latter  end  of  the  letter  "forgot  the  beginning." 

But  that  the  views  of  the  French  Government,  as  to  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  were  in 
reality  such  as  1  represent,  can  be  shown  conclusively  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Roderer  to  the 
Corps  Legislatif,  dated  .November  2ti,  1801,  already  referred  to,  in  which  he  says: 

"The  commercial  agents  of  the  Republic  gave  rise  to  and  excited  some  irritation,-  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States  was  disturbed  by  French  privateers;  several  captures,  to  their  injury, 
followed;  the  American  Congress  then  believed  itself  at  liberty  to  declare  the  United  Slates 
exonerated  front  the  treaties  tv/iich  united  them  to  France,-  they  broke  off  their  relations 
with  her;  they  granted  lellers  of  marque  against  her  armed  vessels  hi  the  colonies;  and  the  en- 
counters at  sea  between  the  vessels  of  the  two  nations  soon  announced  %\hat  the  reconciliation, 
should  be  hastened  if  it  was  desired  that  it  should  not  become  very  difficult." 

"Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  three  American  negotiators  arrived  at  Paris,  led  thither 
by  the  desire  and  the  hope  of  preventing  a  signal  rupture." 

Then  the  American  negotiators  went  to  Paris  to  prevent  a  war,  not  to  close  one  which  had 
been  raging  near  two  years! 

To  tlu'  same  end  I  produce  the  report  of  Mr.  Adit  to  the  tribunal,  dated  December  4,  1801, 
in  which  he  says:  "In  consequence  of  this  bill"  (referring  to  the  act  of  the  7th  July,  1798, 
annulling  the  treaties)  "the  American  Government  suspended  the  commercial  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  France,  and  gave  to  privateers  permission  to  attack  the  armed  vessels  of  the 


30 

Republic.  The  national  frigates  were  ordered  to  seek  them  and  to  fight  them.  A  French  frigate 
and  sloop  of  war,  successively  and  unexpectedly  attacked  by  the  Americans,  were  obliged  to  yield 
to  force;  and  the  French  fla?,  strange  versatility  of  human  affairs,  was  dragged,  humiliated,  be- 
fore the  same  people,  who,  a  little  while  a?o,  with  eager  shouts,  had  applauded  its  triumph. 

"'Twas  getting  past  recovery;  war  would  have  broken  out  between  America  and  France,  if  the 
Directory,  changing  its  system,  and  following  the  counsels  of  prudence,  had  not  opposed  modera- 
tion to  the  unmeasured  conduct  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  " 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  French  Government  did  not  regard  the  defensive  meesuras  adop- 
ted by  the  United  States  as  being  war,  though  they  resulted  in  the  capture  of  two  of  their  public 
armed  ships.  "'T WAS  GETTING  PAST  RECOVERY,"  (says  M.  Adit)  "WAR  WOULD  HAVE 
BROKEN  OUT  between  America  and  France  had  it  not  been  for  the  prudence  and  moderation  of 
the  Directory. 

The  Senate  will  not  forget  in  this  connection,  the  remark  (already  quoted,)  of  Napoleon,  at 
St.  Helena,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Gourgand,  that  the  Convention  of  1800,  not  only  put  an  end  to 
the  treaties,  but  "annulled  the  just  claims  which  America  had  fur  injuries  done  in  TIME  OF 
PEACE."  Comment  is  unnecessary ! 

I  will  now  turn  from  the  views  of  the  French  Government,  to  those  of  the  United  States.  We 
have  seen  what  Congress  thought  of  our  relations,  but  what  did  our  Executive  think? 

1.  Extract  from  the  instructions  to  Messrs.   Ellsworth,  Davie,  and  Murray,  Envoys  and  Min- 
isters to  the  French  Republic,  dated  October  22d,  1799: 

"This  conduct  of  the  French  Republic  would  well  have  justified  an  immediate  declaration  of 
war  on  the  part  of  the  United  States;  but  desirous  of  maintaining  peace,  and  still  willing  to  leave 
open  the  door  of  reconciliation  with  France,  the  United  States  contented  themselves  with  prepa- 
rations fcr  defence,  and  measures  calculated  to  protect  their  commerce." — Doc.  102,  p.  561. 

2.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  April  11,  1800,  from  our  Envoys  to  the  French  Ministers: 

"With  respect  te  the  acts  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  which  the  hard  alternative  of 
abandoning  their  commerce  to  ruin  imposed,  and  which,  far  from  contemplating  a  co  operation  with 
the  enemies  of  the  Republic,  did  not  even  authorize  reprisals  upon  her  merchantmen,  but  were 
restricted  solely  to  the  giving  of  safety  to  their  own,  till  a  moment  should  arrive  when  their  suf- 
ferings could  be  heard  and  redressed. — Doc.  102,  p.  583. 

3.  Extract  from  a  letter  dated  August  20,  1800,  from  our  Envoys,  to  the  French  Ministers: 

"Nor  could  America  ever  conceive  that  protecting  from  depredations  her  property  which  re- 
mains, had  impaired  a  claim  for  that  of  which  she  has  been  despoiled.  More  difficult  still  of  com- 
prehension would  it  be,  that  she  had  aggressed  by  declaring  the  truth;  for  doubtless  declaring 
that  the  treaties  ceased  to  bind  her,  which  the  other  party  had  long  and  greatly  infracted,  was  no 
more.  If,  however,  that  declaration,  as  necessary  for  judicial  purposes  as  it  was  conformable  to 
truth,  had  amounted  to  a  cause  of  war;  yet,  as  the  wisdom  of  France  reconciled  it  to  peace,  its 
application  on  the  principle  of  war  to  the  extinguishment  of  claims,  would  be  inexplicable. — Doc. 
102,  p  6<!3. 

Extract  from  the  message  of  President  Jefferson,  to  Congress,  December  8,    1801. 

"It  is  a  circumstance  of  sincere  gratification  to  me,  that  on  meeting  the  great  council  of  the 
nation,  1  am  able  to  announce  to  them,  on  grounds  of  reasonable  certainty,  that  the  wars  and 
troubles  which  have  for  so  many  years  afflicted  our  sister  nations,  have  at  length  come  to  an  end. 
Whilst  we  devoutly  return  thanks  to  the  beneficent  Being  who  has  been  pleased  to  breathe  into 
them  the  spirit  of  conciliation  and  forgiveness,  we  are  bound  with  peculiar  gratitude,  to  be  thank- 
ful tO  Him  THAT  OUR  OWN  PEACE  HAS  BEEN  PRESERVED  THKOUGHOUT  SO  PERILOUS  A  SEASON, 

and  ourselves  permitted  quietly  to  cultivate  the  earth,    and    to  practice  and  improve  those  arts 
which  tend  to  improve  our  comforts,  &c  " — 5  Wait's  State  Papers,  v.  4,  p.  325-6. 

No  doubt  can  be  entertained,  with  these  papers  before  us,  of  the  entire  concurrence  of  the 
American  Executive  with  that  of  France,  in  viewing  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  as  pacific. 
The  measures  of  the  United  States  were  defensive,  those  of  France  conciliatory,  and  botfi  sought 
a  return  to  their  ancient  relations  of  friendship  and  good  understanding — the  United  States, 
because  their  policy  was  peace,  and  France,  because  she  dreaded  a  hostile  combination  between 
them  and  Great  Britain.  At  length  they  remove  what  they  often  characterised  as  a  mere  "  tran- 
sient misunderstanding,"  by  the  Convention  of  1800,  limited,  however,  to  eight  years.  They 
made  no  treaty  of  peace,  and  who  ever  heard  ot  a  Convention  of  Peace!  and  that,  too,  limited  to 
eight  years! — a  mere  truce!  Why  did  not  the  war  break  out  again  at  the  end  of  the  period  limit- 
ed, and  why  have  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  been  peaceful  to  this  day?  Whatever  war 
there  was  must  have  been  latent,  of  which  the  parties  knew  nothing!  Whoever  looks  into  the 


31 

subject  will  find  much  less  of  war  between  the  two  Republics,  than  there  is  of  aggression  by  those 
who  set  up  this  pretence,  on  the  truth  of  history. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  notice  one  objection  more.  It  has  and  will  be  said,  that  these  claims 
amount  to  much  more  than  the  sum  stipulated  in  this  bill;  that  if  any  thing  is  due,  the  whole  is 
due;  and  that  if  it  is  our  duty  to  pay  any  thing,  we  are  bound  to  pay  in  full.  Notwithstanding 
the  provisions  in  this  bill,  that  the  amounts  to  be  received  shall  completely  exonerate  the  Govern- 
ment, it  is  urged  there  will  remain  for  the  balance  an  irres-istable  equity  which  Congress  will  be 
constrained  sooner  or  later  to  liquidate.  The  answer  to  this  is  obvious.  We  are  not  obliged  to 
pay  the  full  amount,  principal  and  interest.  It  is  our  duty  to  indemnify  the  parties;  that  is  to 
sav,  to  make  up  to  them  the  damages  they  have  sustained;  and  in  estimating  these,  the  value  of  the 
claims  as  against  France,  is  an  important  element.  They  are  not,  in  considering  what  would  be 
a  fair  equivalent,  to  be  deemed  as  so  much  cash  in  hand,  but  as  demands  on  a  foreign  Govern- 
ment in  a  hazardous  situation,  which,  if  realized  at  all,  might  not  be  in  lull,  and  could  only  in 
part  after  much  delay,  trouble  and  expense.  In  this  view,  the  amount  proposed,  may  be  regarded 
as  fair  and  reasonable.  But  the  sum  named  in  the  bill,  is  offered  to  the  parties  on  the  condition 
that  it  shall  be  in  full,  and  if  any  claimant  takes  his  share,  he  agrees  to  the  condition.  It  will 
then  be  the  case  of  a  compromise,  offered  and  accepted,  which  must  end  the  whole  matter.  The 
objection  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  those  who  stoutly  deny  all  liability.  Their  consciencies, 
if  there  should  remain  a  balance  unpaid,  will  be  untouched;  and  we  who  entertain  quite  opposite 
opinions,  proffer  our  co  operation  to  protect  the  treasury. 

I  have  thus,  I  trust,  shown  conclusively,  that  the  United  States  are  bound  to  make  some  in- 
demnity to  these  claimants.  In  view  of  the  facts  and  considerations  developed,  can  there  be  a 
doubt  as  to  what  the  result  would  be,  were  it  competent  for  the  parties  to  file  a  bill  in  equity 
against  the  Goverenment ?  Indeed,  our  national  responsibility  in  this  regard,  has  aheady  been 
pronounced  by  the  highest  juridical  authority,  and  I  produce  here  the  record: 

COLUMBIA,  January  29,  1844. 

SIR:  I  have  this  moment  received  your  letter  of  the  24th  instant,  inquiring  of  me  concerning 
Judge  Marshall's  opinion  on  the  claims  for  French  spoliations  anterior  to  18UO. 

When  that  subject  was  under  discussion  in  the  Senate  some  years  since,  as  a  member  of  the 
committee  to  which  it  had  been  given  in  charge,  I  bestowed  no  little  pains  in  the  investigation 
of  it,  and,  as  I  believe  it  will  happen  to  every  one  that  does  so,  I  became  thoroughly  satisfied  of 
the  justness  of  the  claims. 

While  they  were  under  discussion  in  the  Sonate,  they  happened  to  be  the  subject  of  conver- 
sation between  Mr.  Leigh,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  myself,  one  evening  in  our  mess  parlor,  when 
Judge  Marshall  steped  in,  and,  having  overheard  or  being  informed  of  the  subject  of  conversa- 
tion, asked  to  share  in  it,  saying  that,  having  been  connected  with  the  events  of  that  period,  and 
conversant  with  the  circumstances  under  which  the  claims  arose,  he  was,  from  his  own  know- 
ledge, satisfied  that  there  was  the  strongest  obligation  on  the  Government  to  compensate  the 
sufferers  by  the  French  spoliations.  H?  gave  a  succinct  statement  of  the  leading  facts,  and  the 
principles  of  law  applicable  to  them,  in  so  precise  and  lucid  a  way,  that  it  seemed  to  me  a  termi- 
nation ot  the  argument  by  a  judicial  decision.  It  was  apparent  from  his  manner  that  he  felt 
an  interest  in  the  inculcation  of  his  opinion,  arising  from  deep  conviction  of  its  truth. 

I  most  heartily  desire  that  the  long  delayed  and  very  inadequate  justice  now  proposed  to  these 
unfortunate  claimants  will  be  made  this  session. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

WILLIAM  C.  PRESTON. 

JAMES  H.  CAUSTEN,  Esq.,  Washington. 

[Vide  Appendix  to  Mr.  Clayton's  speech,  delivered  in  the  Senate  April  23d  and  24th,  1846.] 

The  obligation  then  being  perfect,  why  should  it  not  be  met  at  once.  These  claimants  have 
long  been  looking  to  us  for  redress — most  of  the  original  parties  have  gone  down  10  the  grave, 
and  with  respect  to  the  remnant,  they  years  since  realized  the  well  known  truth  that  "  hope  de- 
ferred maketh  the  heart  sick."  I  find  in  one  of  the  city  papers  of  this  morning  the  subjoined 
striking  and  painful  incident ;  it  should  arrest  the  attention  of  the  Senate: 

SINGULAR  COINCIDENCE. — The  newspapers  yesterday  announced  the  death  of  Col.  Kenderton 
Smith,  a  public-spirited  citizen,  whose  life  was  usefully  employed,  and  who  was  generally  esteemed 
by  his  friends  ard  acquaintances.  It  was  only  a  week  or  two  bick  thatCoI.  Smith,  who  was  in- 
terested in  Congress  passing  the  bill  of  indemnity  for  French  spoliations  previous  to  1800,  in  a 
conversation  in  this  office,  remarked,  at  that  time  appearing  in  good  health,  that  the  measure, 
ought  to  have  been  passed  years  ago.  "  We  have  been  waiting,"  he  said,  "for  years  for  justice, 
and  Congress  ought  either  to  pass  the  bill  or  reject  it.  All  of  us  who  have  claims  will  be.  dead 
before  it  will  ever  be  passed."  There  is  something  almost  prophetic  in  these  words.  Yesterday 
the  death  of  Col.  Smith  was  announced,  and  Congress  yesterday  was  to  take  up  the  bill  alluded 

to,  though  the  proceedings  do  not  mention  whether  they  did  any  thing  with  the  bill  or    not 

Philad.  Ledger. 


Many  of  the  claimants  besides  Col.  Smith  have  recently  been  required  to  submit  to  the  inex- 
orable law  of  our  nature.  I  can  recollect  several  with  whom  I  had  the  honor  to  correspond  when 
I  had  charge  of  the  subject  in  the  House  in  1846,  among  them  Leman  Stone,  Esq.,  of  Derby, 
Connecticut,  who  shortly  after  died  at  the  advanced  age  of  ninety.  I  regret  I  have  mislaid  his 
letter,  otherwise  I  would  produce  it ;  I  am  sure  it  would  make  a  deep  impression  on  the  Senate. 
This  morning  I  met  in  this  chamber  an  aged  gentleman,  formerly  a  citizen  of  Alexandria,  who  was 
a  sufferer  to  the  amount  of  $50,000,  and  who  addressed  me  almost  in  the  accents  of  despair — 
he  feared,  with  Col.  Smith,  that  he  and  other  original  claimants  would  "  all  be  dead"  before  Con- 
gress would  pass  the  bill.  He  could  not  doubt  the  justice  of  the  Senate — this  body  had  done  its 
duty  ;  but  he  was  obviously  apprehensive  that  non-action  elsewhere  as  heretofore  might  blight 
his  hopes.  But  I  must  believe  that  the  hour  for  procrastination  has  gone  by,  until  the  event 
proves  me  to  be  wrong. 

If,  however,  contrary  to  every  appeal  and  every  effort,  this  subject  shall  be  thrown  over  to  an- 
other Congress,  shall  we  not  be  in  danger  of  incurring  all  the  infamy  of  repudiation?  Indeed,  I 
consider  the  infidelity  of  some  of  our  States  to  their  engagements,  which  has  given  occasion  to  so 
much  remark,  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  injustice  and  perfidy  which  these  transactions 
disclose.  To  deny  all  relief,  or  even  to  postpone  it,  I  shall  deem  an  ineffaceable  blot  on  our  na- 
tional escutcheon,  and  a  crying  reproach  to  the  American  name  and  character, 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD  21A-50 

(A9562slO  . 


General  Library 

UniYersity  of  California 

Berkeley 


